BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Game Systems => A Time of War => Topic started by: victor_shaw on 26 September 2019, 10:12:15

Title: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 26 September 2019, 10:12:15
After some of the things I have heard and seen out of CGL in the last couple of weeks I have to ask What is the future of A Time of War.
As a RPGer who mostly plays Alpha Strike and Battleforce for my boardgaming, most of what I need to play is already out.
CGL has been so closed lipped about what the plans are for AToW that I'm starting to wounder if there are any.

The thing is that AToW has effective been out-of-print (OOP) for a long time now, and as some posters have brought up, this has lead to less interest and a harder time drawing in new players due to the lack of physical product.

I feel that CGL really needs to step-forward and give a plan for this line before it dies completely.
They either need to;
1. Admit it is dead and they have no intentions of reviving it outside of the PDF, and only support MW:D fully.
2. Move forward with the reprint adding in the errata and be done with it.
3. Say that they plan to revise it and start work on that showing its not just lip-service to facilitate the first two options.
4. Announce plans for a new edition and be open and transparent about the system and what they are trying to do so we don't wind-up with another SR 6th.

As it stands the "will think about it later" answer is getting old considering how long the game has been ignored and OOP.

I would really like to know were this is heading because if one of the first two option is the case I can move on and just house rule the game and fix the issues I have on my own.
If it's the third option I truly hope that they will work with the fans to make the game work.
If the last option is were they are going to go, My hope is that they will go with a true beta and be transparent with the fans of other editions so again we can work towards the best outcome.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 26 September 2019, 15:41:08
I haven't seen the "will think about it later" response... where was that?

What I remember from the Kickstarter was that "AToW will continue to be supported" (it was a post on these boards).  Of course, that implies that it's supported now, which can be debated.

Having just refreshed my general dislike for narrative systems last night, I sincerely hope it's not going to be option 1.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 26 September 2019, 15:54:56
I haven't seen the "will think about it later" response... where was that?

What I remember from the Kickstarter was that "AToW will continue to be supported" (it was a post on these boards).  Of course, that implies that it's supported now, which can be debated.

Having just refreshed my general dislike for narrative systems last night, I sincerely hope it's not going to be option 1.

Direct quote from CGL in response to my question about the future of AToW.

"So for now ATOW will wait until we have the MWD Beta out and feedback from the community on what was liked and what needs reworked. Once we have a good feel for MWD, we will revisit ATOW." Catalyst Game

Now after some thought this is indicating to me that
1 or 4 are the most likely outcome, with 2 as a possibility because I'm not sure if this is indicating them see if MW:Destiny does well enough for them to drop AToW.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 26 September 2019, 15:58:02
That's... far more depressing than what was said here...  xp
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 26 September 2019, 16:03:41
That's... far more depressing than what was said here...  xp
?
What I said, or what they said was more depressing?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 26 September 2019, 16:04:33
What they said...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 26 September 2019, 19:07:21
ATOW and ATOW Companion are pretty much complete as a system as it is. You can play in just about era with those two books. What do you really need other than those two books other than adventures?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 26 September 2019, 19:09:33
I'd kill for a 3025 sourcebook so I can stop having to adapt ER: 3052...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 26 September 2019, 19:16:36
ATOW and ATOW Companion are pretty much complete as a system as it is. You can play in just about era with those two books. What do you really need other than those two books other than adventures?

The issues was never the setting or the completeness of the two books.
The issues are the books have not been available in print for a long time now. and There are issues that need to be resolved with the character creation system and some of other rules.
No one is saying we need more books, we just need the books in the first place.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Maelwys on 26 September 2019, 22:07:54
I'd kill for a 3025 sourcebook so I can stop having to adapt ER: 3052...

Might be easier to adapt ER2750 :)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 27 September 2019, 03:33:29
I'd rather not have to adapt either one, but that's a side issue to what Victor_Shaw would like to discuss.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Maelwys on 27 September 2019, 06:37:45
Yeah, I have no idea why with the HBS game and Destiny being 3025, why an Era Report for 3025 wasn't released to prime the pump for 3025 play.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 27 September 2019, 15:24:19
That's beginning to sound a lot like a fan project...  ::)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Bedwyr on 27 September 2019, 15:33:01
No one is saying we need more books, we just need the books in the first place.

As far as I can tell, there have been no changes to plans for re-printing all core books with the new retro art and MadCat spine art.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 27 September 2019, 19:05:28
As far as I can tell, there have been no changes to plans for re-printing all core books with the new retro art and MadCat spine art.

The revision idea is from one of the freelance writers that worked on the book talking about changing the Field system to a set number instead of having the players calculate it.
It's entirely possible that he was just talking about changes he would like to make and not planned changes, and a little wishful thinking on my part.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 27 September 2019, 19:10:25
I think leaving the Field System in player hands is fine... It's only a little extra math, and provides a great deal of flexibility.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 27 September 2019, 19:17:46
I think leaving the Field System in player hands is fine... It's only a little extra math, and provides a great deal of flexibility.

Yeah, but it gets a lot of flak from players as unnecessary math.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 27 September 2019, 19:20:31
Only those who don't appreciate the flexibility.  If we ever get another Intelligence Operations Handbook, that flexibility will be needed...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: beachhead1985 on 28 September 2019, 09:00:10
A game I need a spreadsheet to make a character for needs much more company support to be workable that we have seen for ATOW.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 September 2019, 10:10:40
I wouldn't say "need"... while it's MUCH easier with one than without, it can be done by hand.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Robroy on 28 September 2019, 10:42:38
I did mine with pencil and paper. Once you get used to the layout and figure out where everything is it is not to bad. This is why you have people calling for it to be reorganized and streamlined.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 28 September 2019, 10:52:54
I did mine with pencil and paper. Once you get used to the layout and figure out where everything is it is not to bad. This is why you have people calling for it to be reorganized and streamlined.

True, but it is not a "pick up and go" system.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Robroy on 28 September 2019, 11:04:01
True, but I don't think it was ever ment to be. Almost every RPG I ever played the first session was building characters and what kind of game the GM had in mind, and if we had time, bring the party together. The only times I did "pick up games" the GMs had pre-generated characters.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 September 2019, 11:10:05
That's the general model of convention games, the "living worlds" aside.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 28 September 2019, 11:21:44
I don't know about it not being a pick up and go type of game as I've done point buy characters using only pencil and paper in as little as ten minutes not counting equipment shopping.

Module it depends on how many modules we're talking but Affiliation, five modules(counting OCS), and once again not counting equipment shopping I've been done in about thirty minutes using only pencil and paper.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 28 September 2019, 13:13:15
I've gone over my issues with AToW many time, but here we go again.  :'(
AToW corebook
1. While not a terrible system (I've see a lot worst) the life path system:
a. Has more number crunching then it needs to be.
b. Is way to generic in the later paths to effectively cover the diversity of the setting.
c. Waste to many points on on under pointed traits/skills/etc. Why bother giving "Fit" 15 when it takes 200 points to get the trait?
d. Makes players calculate fields that could have easily had set point values.
2. The skill system has to many level of skills that all use different formulas.
3. The layout of the book is atrocious
4. The book waste to much page count on filler

AToW Companion
1. Eight pages of wasted space on conversions of all editions that could have been a PDF.
2. The book waste to much page count on filler.
3. The advance melee rules are great in the maneuvers presented, but the lack of setup Martial Arts packages make is seem incomplete and generic.
4. Twelve pages of rank tables, Really!
5. ADVANCED TACTICAL COMBAT is both to in dept and lacking important information.

Both
Same issues I have with most CGL products Charts/Character sheets (back of book) should be PDF and not taking up page count.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 September 2019, 14:16:38
The system might have "more number crunching than it needs", but I think it works on balance.

The filler issue is why I think the later life paths are so generic.  Those pages could easily have been spent on giving us faction flavored Academies, Tours of Duty, etc.

I see the small amounts of XP thrown at various expensive traits as simply a way to get the player to consider buying the Trait later.  I think this is a great idea, and helps make more diverse characters in the end.

Fields are presented in a way that lets GMs make their own easily (just count up the number of skills you want a field to have, and give a rebate based on that number).  That is nothing but pure win in my book.

I'm not sure what you mean by "too many level of skills that use different formulas"... Are you talking about the Simple/Complex//Basic/Advanced construct?  The differentiation is actually not that hard to understand.  Or are you talking about Tiered Skills specifically?  I fear this issue inevitably leads to the "2d6 isn't granular enough for an RPG" discussion.

I can't disagree about the layout.  It could use some (ok, a LOT of) work.

I already addressed "filler", and am in complete agreement.  If a company really feels a need to include fiction in a RULE book, one story per book makes a heck of a lot more sense than one story per CHAPTER.

I can see why eight pages were given to conversion rules in the Companion.  Given the fiction/filler problem, I really can't see this meriting mention.

I agree Martial Arts could have used more work.  But I'm not unhappy with what it got.

Like the conversion rules, I can see 12 pages for rank tables for that "faction flavor" we all seem to want.  Could it have been presented more efficiently?  Probably.

Your issues with Advanced Tactical Combat really need to be explained in more detail.  I have no idea what you find inappropriate about them.  ???

As far as character sheets, they really need to be in the book.  Like it or not, not everyone who can obtain a hard copy can use a pdf (for an uncountable number of reasons).  Completeness alone demands the sheet be in the book.  Should sheets be included in digital versions of the book as separate documents?  Absolutely!  And yes, they should be available as free downloads too.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 September 2019, 16:03:39
With regard to the four types of skills, AToW page 141 has this:
Quote
COMPLEXITY RATING
The second half of the TN / C Rating, a Skill’s Complexity Rating is a two-letter code that reflects how involved the Skill is in terms of physical action or concentration and training. A Skill’s action rating can be Simple (S) or Complex (C), while its training rating can be Basic (B) or Advanced (A). For example, a Skill with a “CB” Complexity Rating is “Complex-Basic”.
Action Rating: Skills with a Simple action rating (SB or SA) may be executed quickly and with little conscious thought.  Complex Skills (CB or CA) are more involved and take more time and concentration to perform.
Training Rating: Basic Skills (SB or CB) reflect Skills that require little formal training and come to most characters quickly. Advanced Skills (SA or CA) involve more in-depth instruction and study, often requiring months—or even years—to truly master.

The other aspect of Advanced Skills is that they rely on two Attributes instead of one.  This means you can get a bonus from two Linked Attributes, and that's why they start with a base target number one harder.

Pages 140-141 really lay it out in about as concise a way as possible, and I can't fault the logic.  Whoever designed this skill system really earned their pay!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 28 September 2019, 16:27:36
The system might have "more number crunching than it needs", but I think it works on balance.

It' not a question of balance or does it work. It's about the perception that new players get from it.
The path system is suppose to guide new player towards creation of a character that would exist in the BTU.
Instead it hits them with large groups of numbers then tell them to take every thing they just did run it through a filter and start spending again.
I know you and others have made spreadsheets to help, but there is a difference from say Herolab, Chummer, PCGen, Etc. that run you through the character creation process and an excel spreadsheet that just organizes the number.

The filler issue is why I think the later life paths are so generic.  Those pages could easily have been spent on giving us faction flavored Academies, Tours of Duty, etc.

I agree with you here.

I see the small amounts of XP thrown at various expensive traits as simply a way to get the player to consider buying the Trait later.  I think this is a great idea, and helps make more diverse characters in the end.

And if it work that would be fine but lets face it, it doesn't work.
In the many character I have made and seen made, most if not all players just optimize these traits out.
If you want a trait to be looked at as something that most characters from that background would have, then at least give it 1/2 or more of the required xp.
If Fit was set to 100 xp, I would say that most players would invest the other 100 xp as fit is a good trait, but as it stands 15 xp (less the 8%) is not at all inticing players to take the trait, as they are still missing 92% of the required XP.

Fields are presented in a way that lets GMs make their own easily (just count up the number of skills you want a field to have, and give a rebate based on that number).  That is nothing but pure win in my book.

Not sure I fellow you here.
The instruction given on page. 71 do let you create your own field packs, but what does that have to do with not just listing the pack prices and having the players do the math, as they are always the same.
Why list just the MechWarrior Field  and not list MechWarrior Field ( 120 xp)?
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "too many level of skills that use different formulas"... Are you talking about the Simple/Complex//Basic/Advanced construct?  The differentiation is actually not that hard to understand.  Or are you talking about Tiered Skills specifically?  I fear this issue inevitably leads to the "2d6 isn't granular enough for an RPG" discussion.

I was talking about Simple Basic, Simple Advanced, Complex Basic, Complex Advanced, Unskilled Basic, Unskilled Advanced, and on top of that the Tiered Skills system.
With each having a different formulas. While it not hard to comprehend after you get it down, it's a obstacle to new players.

I can't disagree about the layout.  It could use some (ok, a LOT of) work.

You would have to be insane to disagree here. This is an ongoing issues with most CGL products.

I already addressed "filler", and am in complete agreement.  If a company really feels a need to include fiction in a RULE book, one story per book makes a heck of a lot more sense than one story per CHAPTER.

I could be down with a 5 or 10 page story in the rule book to set the tone, but 35 pages of story are a bit much.

I can see why eight pages were given to conversion rules in the Companion.  Given the fiction/filler problem, I really can't see this meriting mention.

I can't, conversion rules are a side thing that in practice never work right and longtime GM or player will tell you lose the feel of your PC/NPC ever time.
I have know problem with them existing, just with them taking up space that could have been used for Academies, Martial arts packages, etc. in a book that I paid for.

I agree Martial Arts could have used more work.  But I'm not unhappy with what it got.

Again, they work but are just a list of maneuvers with no flavor or binding.

Like the conversion rules, I can see 12 pages for rank tables for that "faction flavor" we all seem to want.  Could it have been presented more efficiently?  Probably.

The table are overblown, over colored, and could have easily been reduced to 1 or 2 pages if properly laid out.

Your issues with Advanced Tactical Combat really need to be explained in more detail.  I have no idea what you find inappropriate about them.  ???

This would be a long conversation that I have already had to many times and am not looking forward to having again unless during a beta or revision discussion with the writers. So I'll leave it there for now.

As far as character sheets, they really need to be in the book.  Like it or not, not everyone who can obtain a hard copy can use a pdf (for an uncountable number of reasons).  Completeness alone demands the sheet be in the book.  Should sheets be included in digital versions of the book as separate documents?  Absolutely!  And yes, they should be available as free downloads too.

I will give you the character sheet even though I never used the ones from the books (Official PDF or fan made), but there are things like the planetary maps, Combat charts, relisting of table like the master skill/trait tables that if not already a free PDF off the site or on the GM screen, are not all that useful in the back of the book when they are already listed in the section they are used in.

Again for the most part I like AToW.
I just think in presentation, layout, and character creation it pushes new and some old players away.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 28 September 2019, 16:29:58
With regard to the four types of skills, AToW page 141 has this:
The other aspect of Advanced Skills is that they rely on two Attributes instead of one.  This means you can get a bonus from two Linked Attributes, and that's why they start with a base target number one harder.

Pages 140-141 really lay it out in about as concise a way as possible, and I can't fault the logic.  Whoever designed this skill system really earned their pay!  :thumbsup:

Again, the point was not that it doesn't work or that it didn't take a lot of design work.
The point is that it is IMHO way over-designed to appeal to most new players.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: RunandFindOut on 28 September 2019, 16:54:57
Frankly ATOW character generation seems intentionally complex for the sake of complexity.  And the books are badly edited forcing you to go back and forth all over the place for rules that they've stashed across the book nowhere near the situations they apply to.  It's bad enough that I just don't use AToW for battletech RPG at all, instead I'll just use two separate systems.  Using TW for mapboard scale battlefield stuff, then switching to an entirely different system for personal scale.  Normally CP2020 or that modern variant of Exalted1e using heroic mortals only a fan created way back.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 September 2019, 18:14:40
RunandFindOut: I don't think it's complexity for complexity's sake.  I'm sure TPTB simply found themselves with a system as complex as it was after making a lot of small decisions based on narrow criteria that ended up with the overall result we have.

Victor_Shaw: I think we're narrowing down the scope here, in a good way...

Re: the perception of new players... I can't disagree that it may be intimidating at first glance.  Layout and presentation could go a long way to solving this problem.

As far as small amounts of XP thrown at Traits: if the player actually goes through the Optimization process as written, that's at least one more time they see that Trait before finalizing their points.  In that way, I think it works as intended.  I consider the amount of XP to be the proportion of the relevant population that has that Trait, not that any XP at all means "most" have it.  So for Fit: with only 15 XP thrown at it, I would see that as meaning 7.5% of the population with that module has the Fit Trait.

With regard to Fields, I suppose that really comes down to a formatting/presentation issue.  In that light, I don't think there's any daylight between us.

For Skills, it's not so much that the formula is different, as the base number you start with is different.  SB start with 7, SA and CB both start with 8, and CA start with 9.  Tiered skills simply switch from one class to another at level 4.

My point about the conversion rules was that 8 pages is much less than the 35 given to fiction.  I think the things we both want in the rule book could both be provided in the space between 8 and 35.

I'm more than willing to defer discussion of Advanced Tactical Combat to another thread, so we can close the loop on that one.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: RifleMech on 29 September 2019, 07:25:12
I've gone over my issues with AToW many time, but here we go again.  :'(
AToW corebook
1. While not a terrible system (I've see a lot worst) the life path system:
a. Has more number crunching then it needs to be.
b. Is way to generic in the later paths to effectively cover the diversity of the setting.
c. Waste to many points on on under pointed traits/skills/etc. Why bother giving "Fit" 15 when it takes 200 points to get the trait?
d. Makes players calculate fields that could have easily had set point values.
2. The skill system has to many level of skills that all use different formulas.
3. The layout of the book is atrocious
4. The book waste to much page count on filler

AToW Companion
1. Eight pages of wasted space on conversions of all editions that could have been a PDF.
2. The book waste to much page count on filler.
3. The advance melee rules are great in the maneuvers presented, but the lack of setup Martial Arts packages make is seem incomplete and generic.
4. Twelve pages of rank tables, Really!
5. ADVANCED TACTICAL COMBAT is both to in dept and lacking important information.

Both
Same issues I have with most CGL products Charts/Character sheets (back of book) should be PDF and not taking up page count.


I agree with the lay out being a mess for all the core books. It is very frustrating having to not just flip pages but books to cover what I need.
I also agree with the filler. Stories are nice but not necessary.
I also agree on the number crunching.
I agree its detailed in some ways and lacking in others. This goes for ATOW and TW. (I can have knights and archers but not musketeers?)


I disagree on the conversions though. If there aren't conversions from one edition to another I usually don't buy the new one. I also don't want to have to hunt online for them. That's worse than having to flip through multiple books.

I also disagree on the blank sheets. They're a necessary part of the game. You can't play without them. They need to be included. And as above I shouldn't have to go hunting for them. That adds a completely unnecessary step.

The issues I'd love to see fixed besides those above are the abstraction in damage from personal to group. Damage goes down with more people shooting. You'd think it'd go up. The other thing that bugs me is that there are vehicles that I cannot build under TW rules.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 29 September 2019, 08:08:12
I've asked about the differing damage scale conversion formulas in the past... I don't recall ever receiving a satisfactory answer.  I think it will ultimately have to come down to something BAR related.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 29 September 2019, 14:06:47

I agree with the lay out being a mess for all the core books. It is very frustrating having to not just flip pages but books to cover what I need.
I also agree with the filler. Stories are nice but not necessary.
I also agree on the number crunching.
I agree its detailed in some ways and lacking in others. This goes for ATOW and TW. (I can have knights and archers but not musketeers?)


I disagree on the conversions though. If there aren't conversions from one edition to another I usually don't buy the new one. I also don't want to have to hunt online for them. That's worse than having to flip through multiple books.

I also disagree on the blank sheets. They're a necessary part of the game. You can't play without them. They need to be included. And as above I shouldn't have to go hunting for them. That adds a completely unnecessary step.

The issues I'd love to see fixed besides those above are the abstraction in damage from personal to group. Damage goes down with more people shooting. You'd think it'd go up. The other thing that bugs me is that there are vehicles that I cannot build under TW rules.

On most of these we just have to agree to disagree.
But, on the conversions, while I can understand (in this case) 3rd to 4th conversion, have ones for each edition is going way overboard.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 29 September 2019, 14:18:36
For the conversion rules, 1st Edition got two pages (one of which was tables), 2nd got two and a quarter pages (one of which was tables), and 3rd got the rest (two and a bit which were tables).  Compared to the fiction, that wasn't much investment at all.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: RifleMech on 30 September 2019, 10:49:46
On most of these we just have to agree to disagree.
But, on the conversions, while I can understand (in this case) 3rd to 4th conversion, have ones for each edition is going way overboard.

 :thumbsup:
On the other hand there's still players who play the earlier editions and including conversions could interest them into playing the newer editions.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 30 September 2019, 15:30:16
Given the poll results, I think the various editions got about what they each earned (even though the poll wasn't representative of anything but posters on this board).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Giorgio76 on 07 February 2020, 06:39:50
I am just starting to read the ATOW core rulebook that a friend lent to me, as I couldn’t afford insane Ebay prices for a hardback copy and reading 300+ pages of a PDF is hard for me. Getting the core rulebook printed in a local print shop here in Florida got me price quotes in the $60-$90 range (B&W); a bit to high for me right now, and that makes the Ebay prices of $85-$150 (color) seem reasonable.

First Impressions:
-No POD option on Drivethrurpg is killing my ability to read the core rulebook, companion, and GM screen as a GM, and to recruit new players who want a physical copy of the core rulebook.

-The layout is confusing as hell with way too many rules scattered in different places, and to much page flipping to find information.

-The rules complexity is way to high for me, especially if I need both an excel spreadsheet AND 4+ Hours of You Tube tutorials (by BiggRigg42) just to understand what I am reading and to create NPC and PC characters.

-I like the MechWarrior Destiny rules that allows you to combine RPG and Tabletop combat, I wish there was something like this here.

-I contacted CGL via the Battletech Clan Invasion Kickstarter message system and got the following info: they would look into why ATOW is not available as a POD option on DTRPG. Haven’t got a reply back since last year.

-I contacted CGL via email and I got a response to the future of ATOW,  “paraphrasing” the response: “we will look into it after the KS is over and we see the feedback to MechWarrior Destiny; we will need to determine if there is enough demand to justify a revised edition (combining the core rules and companion into one book with a new layout)”. I would need to ask permission to get the exact quote directly from the source.

-I want to give ATOW a fair shake, but the core rulebook itself is giving me a hard time to read, understand, and put into the GM/Players hands. It is almost making me consider using a whole different ruleset to run an RPG campaign in the Battletech universe.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: beachhead1985 on 07 February 2020, 12:17:07


-The rules complexity is way to high for me, especially if I need both an excel spreadsheet AND 4+ Hours of You Tube tutorials (by BiggRigg42) just to understand what I am reading and to create NPC and PC characters.

You're not wrong. This is a huge barrier to entry for ATOW.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 07 February 2020, 16:13:51
It goes much easier face to face.

As far as table top integration, the "Tactical Combat Addendum" chapter is what you want (pages 200-225).  If there are specific character creation issues, if you send me what the players want, I can crank out finished characters pretty quickly.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 07 February 2020, 20:36:17
I would suggest it is dead.

IMO, AToW sets the right "tone" and "feel" for a BT based RPG, but it has enough serious flaws in the system that it needs a comprehensive revision, rewriting and streamlining.

Among these, the game needs (to one degree or snother)..

>>>>Better writing and layout...although, the problems with this in the current version are at least partially a result of other issues
>>>>Less reliance on math...the game is seen as too intimidating, especially during character creation and that can deter new players
>>>>Less emphasis on Mech combat and replicating the board game...we already have the board game and AS
>>>>A fleshed out vehicle combat system..which AToW doesn't have
>>>>A points based chargen system...to replace the wasteful and intimidating LifePath system
>>>>A reworked skill and attribute check system...in line with the goal of making the game seem familiar and welcoming
>>>>A streamlined combat system, including simplified AP mechanics...the current system is skewed by the current focus on Mechs but if a scale system is added, and a simple ArmourPiercing mechanic is added (weapon penetrates if AP is greater than or equal to armour) it can be reworked into something a little faster with fewer mods. Maybe even something a bit less lethal rather than relying upon the Hero rules in the Companion.
>>>>The introduction and expansion of Destiny's scale system to solve some issues of granularity...if you want to keep a 2D6, other mechanics need to be introduced and a scale system dividing weapons and armour into four of five differing levels of power is one such mechanism. Five groups...personal, support, heavy support, vehicular and Mech...each with AP/AV values of 1-10, with each unable to damage any higher rating would work. That still leaves Dropship and Capital scales
>>>>A refocus away from the MW stat generator and more focus on "PC on foot"
>>>>Enhanced integration with AGoAC, AS, TW, etc rather than the rules replacement it currently tries to be. Why have a universe over 30 years old with dozens of books...that you can't use?

And more. Some of these are more problematic than others though, bit others are, IMO, critical issues that need to be addressed

It would essentially be a new RPG system.

Alternatively, they could copy Shadowrun. Move to a simple percent based mechanic. Whatever.

But I don't see AToW being as successful as it should be without that level of revision. And I doubt Destiny is the right choice either. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.

A pity in a way...Shrapnel would have been a nice way to get some RPG content out to support the game
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 07 February 2020, 20:44:54
Shrapnel is still a good way to get RPG content out for the game.  I doubt they'll do it, but it's still a vehicle.

And you already know I don't think it's dead.  It certainly could use some work, but it's no more dead than BattleTech.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 11 February 2020, 04:58:48
Shrapnel is still a good way to get RPG content out for the game.  I doubt they'll do it, but it's still a vehicle.


Yes - but the problem is that I don't think they will, or at least, not a lot.
Personally, I'd prefer Shrapnel to be a magazine less reliant on BT and more of an in house magazine, covering Shadowrun, Leviathans and other games by CGL. Of course, if Shrapnel is successful (fingers crossed) then there is a lot of material for BT that could be added, enough to fill several magazines - previews, house rules, hints, tips and strategy, stories, units and so on.

Quote
And you already know I don't think it's dead.  It certainly could use some work, but it's no more dead than BattleTech.

The rulebook is out of print, and being honest, the rules for the BT RPG have never been that great. I love the tone of the AToW, as it (well, MW3) was the first time it felt like they were making a serious effort at a BT RPG (MW2 being fun but, like MW1, was mainly a stat generator for the pilots) but the RPG rules need a major overhaul, revision, rewriting and the layout needs updating. AToW may not be dead, but I am aware of several groups that RP in the BTU - but use a different game system. That in itself isn't a major vote of confidence in the system and that CGL appears indifferent towards AToW is worrying. There isn't exactly a lot of support coming out beyond the bits and pieces in the Ere books.

Which is good, as in better than nothing, but there are no adventures, no expansions, no scenarios and the promised revised and updated version has been promised now for several years.

To me, that is as good as dead.

I hope that CGL will get round to addressing the issues, but they seem intent on Destiny instead. I would not expect any new BT RPG (revised, updated or otherwise) for several years and you have no idea how much I regret feeling that way.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 11 February 2020, 18:29:53
I have some idea, but only because RL is that bad at the moment...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: abou on 14 February 2020, 00:35:22
My thoughts are to start with a revised character creation system and then to work your way out from there with revisions elsewhere. So much of the AToW layout seems to be backwards with where to find things. It's just hard to describe, but it is clear many of us feel that way.

1. Reduce the amount of fiction in the rules books. Get one introductory story at the beginning and leave it at that.
2. Change the lifepath system.

Everything after that would probably flow easily. I would say for character creation, the player should start with what they want their character to be and then add flavor from there. This would be similar to character creation from D&D/Pathfinder, but it just makes the most sense -- at least to me. It gives you a framework that you can go off of and then add individuality from there rather than starting from birth and working your way up.

Do you want to be a 'mechwarrior? Great! Here are the basics that you need to be a serviceable 'mech jock. Now for your background: how did you get there? What state or region do you call home? Noble scion with inherited 'mech? Middle class or farm boy that got an education at an academy? Raised in a merc unit? Pick one: here are the pros and cons of each. Let's add in more background information and have you pick other skills and hobbies -- some might be available and others not. What are you good at and what are you bad at? Caffeine addiction? Great, me too!

I think the lifepath system is really neat in concept, but just torturous to get through. There should be room for variety so that characters are not generic or pigeonholed. But I think the irony is that the creation process is so detailed and exhausting that it overshadows one of the very first things said in the introduction: this is about ROLE playing and not ROLL playing.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: DelevanGuardsCO on 20 September 2020, 23:53:59


AToW Companion
1. Eight pages of wasted space on conversions of all editions that could have been a PDF.

4. Twelve pages of rank tables, Really!


Both
Same issues I have with most CGL products Charts/Character sheets (back of book) should be PDF and not taking up page count.

Not really sure how these are issues for you. The conversion rules in the Companion allow me to use the MW, MW2 and MW3 products that I have sitting on my shelves. The rank and title tables are perfect for the diversity of the setting. Generic ranks and titles remove the flavor of the setting. My group includes an FRR Knight (Ritter) turned Merc. An FC Noble and an FWL Noble. The actual titles and the rules on how they interact are perfect for a diverse setting.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 21 September 2020, 00:12:44
Not really sure how these are issues for you. The conversion rules in the Companion allow me to use the MW, MW2 and MW3 products that I have sitting on my shelves. The rank and title tables are perfect for the diversity of the setting. Generic ranks and titles remove the flavor of the setting. My group includes an FRR Knight (Ritter) turned Merc. An FC Noble and an FWL Noble. The actual titles and the rules on how they interact are perfect for a diverse setting.

Because, in AToW, this flavour came at the expense of the rules and information needed to run the game.


This type of information is best suited for sourcebooks on each faction - of which there are actually plenty and while here is indeed an argument that a companion volume is a good place for it, it is the type of information that should be added only after the core game is complete.

Which, AToW, even counting the Companion (much of which should actually be core rules) still is not. Why? Because they tried to make to BattleTroops AND the Board Game as well as an RPG. Much of the material presented isn't needed, isn't necessary and detracts from the RPG side - which the rulebook is supposedly for. The rulebook is trying to do too much and as a result, lacks focus and necessary information.
 
Conversion rules are great - but they are also the type of material that should be available as a Free PDF on the the main website rather than taking up space in a book. And with so much of what should be core rules and important information missing, 12 pages of rank tables is too much.

There is a glimmer of a decent RPG in ATOW...but it is mixed in with alternate ruleset for BattleTroops and AGoAC that simply are not needed for an RPG.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 21 September 2020, 13:27:12
I would be happy if the lifepath systems had the same range when rolling for what happens.  I.e. all of them are 3d6 or all are 2d6, not a mix.  This allows a GM to tell the players they get X number of points to fake their rolls.  Add a list of various jobs and the recommended lifepaths to take (i.e. Mech pilot, tactical officer, Merchant prince, planetary admin, technician, infantry officer, battlearmor operator, skilled expert, wilderness scout, etc)

Add a chart showing the rough XP cost/bonus for each level on the 2d6 or 3d6 setup, in case the players or GM want to make their own custom lifepath.  I.e. a '3' on the 2d6 chart might give the character 2-3 disadvantages, but note that the character gets Y amount of bonus XP.  So if the player is willing to put up with those disadvantages, they get more XP to buy useful skills (or buy off one or two of the disadvantages).

The other idea would be that the lifepaths cost ### amount of starting XP, but the skills they provide are 10% more than if you used the same amount of XP to just purchase the skills directly.  So technically a player could use their starting XP and get exactly the skills/advantages/disadvantages they want, but using a Lifepath allows them to get some of those skills at a discount, while adding a lot more flavor to their character.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 22 September 2020, 18:12:41
I would be happy if the lifepath systems had the same range when rolling for what happens.  I.e. all of them are 3d6 or all are 2d6, not a mix.  This allows a GM to tell the players they get X number of points to fake their rolls.  Add a list of various jobs and the recommended lifepaths to take (i.e. Mech pilot, tactical officer, Merchant prince, planetary admin, technician, infantry officer, battlearmor operator, skilled expert, wilderness scout, etc)

Add a chart showing the rough XP cost/bonus for each level on the 2d6 or 3d6 setup, in case the players or GM want to make their own custom lifepath.  I.e. a '3' on the 2d6 chart might give the character 2-3 disadvantages, but note that the character gets Y amount of bonus XP.  So if the player is willing to put up with those disadvantages, they get more XP to buy useful skills (or buy off one or two of the disadvantages).

The other idea would be that the lifepaths cost ### amount of starting XP, but the skills they provide are 10% more than if you used the same amount of XP to just purchase the skills directly.  So technically a player could use their starting XP and get exactly the skills/advantages/disadvantages they want, but using a Lifepath allows them to get some of those skills at a discount, while adding a lot more flavor to their character.

Are you talking about 3rd edition or AToW (4th edition)?
Under the standard rules there is not event roll, it's an optional rule in the mechwarrior  companion.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Elmoth on 23 September 2020, 01:59:53
My group is one of those that plays in the BT universe with other systems. We took a look at ATOW in pdf and decided to steer way clear. For us a new edition would not cut it, and for what you say, neither would for any of you. You are talking about a major overhaul that equates a new system, not a new edition.

If you want to keep the core mechanic, there are plenty of 2D6-based systems out there that could serve as inspiration for a BT rulebook.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Col Toda on 28 September 2020, 02:31:23
Need ERA by ERA and outlyer career tracks and Belter Phenotype info.

Ghost Bear Dominion  Tracks , Marion Hegemony track , a full Cyberware supplement.

 Jarn Folk and Bandit Caste Deep periphery by era source book . Expanded Solaris VII and Yakuza/Triads and other Black market sourcebook  . In a campaign where black market goods are 30 -50 times list price and how much of it revolves in financing  The Clan Society and other shadow factions .

Frankly ATOW is barely scratched . The ATOW Companion suggests Joe Q Average  planet has a 60 million C bill operating defense budget which suggests  about 300 million or less of hardware /military units . So a supplement outlying generic militia and counter intelligence units .

The long peace of the Republic before the Dark Age lets you see worlds defended with lances of Manticore IIs but once combat ensues  the loss of even 1 tank means no instant replacement as the unit requires too many resources to produce . This make post Republic militias just as vulnerable to waves of cheap fuel cell attrition unit combat vehicles  as the Clans are .
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Sartris on 29 September 2020, 10:57:56
My group is one of those that plays in the BT universe with other systems.

i've got a fast and loose setup drawn up for D20 future (it's what i've got). depending on the seriousness and experience of a potential group i might just use destiny or even FATE. Savage Worlds might work ok?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Elmoth on 29 September 2020, 11:05:52
Savage worlds has a mod for BT iirc, or mechas un general. Same for fate.
Depends on what you want.

Humans should not be inner. Mechs son the bother hand can be inner. And the spiral of death of savage worlds qualifies well for a.mech being pounde.d first hits are irrelevant.then it enters Bad Territory.

We just use alpha strike for our mech battles and have a rules lite mod based on 2d6+minor loss to solve the stuff in "human form". Easy and going to the roleplay instead of the rollplay. A human is. Human. A human in his field of expertise gets a +1 to +3 to the roll. Easy.

Cheers
Xavi
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: ActionButler on 30 September 2020, 12:48:49
My group is one of those that plays in the BT universe with other systems. We took a look at ATOW in pdf and decided to steer way clear. For us a new edition would not cut it, and for what you say, neither would for any of you. You are talking about a major overhaul that equates a new system, not a new edition.

If you want to keep the core mechanic, there are plenty of 2D6-based systems out there that could serve as inspiration for a BT rulebook.

Quick question from a friendly neighborhood mod who just happened to notice this comment while doing his usual rounds.

Any suggestions for a non-AToW system for Battletech roleplay? I stupidly got rid of my MW 2E books and I'd be interested to know what other people use.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Pat Payne on 30 September 2020, 14:16:43
Quick question from a friendly neighborhood mod who just happened to notice this comment while doing his usual rounds.

Any suggestions for a non-AToW system for Battletech roleplay? I stupidly got rid of my MW 2E books and I'd be interested to know what other people use.

I'm working with Destiny now, but before that came about, I was doing some experiments with Mongoose Traveller and the various iterations of WEG's Star Wars/D6 systems.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 30 September 2020, 17:57:54
Would an electronic character creation/record sheet help with entry into AToW?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 30 September 2020, 19:29:29
Daryk has a pretty good spreadsheet around here somewhere.

Mine has problems that I am no longer inclined to fix.

Probably some others already floating around.

Yet I still wouldn't say character creation is complex enough to demand one, largely depending on method one wants to use and how organized one is.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 30 September 2020, 21:51:46
I'm thinking of something easy enough to walk through the creation, and understand it, without having to deal with all the crazy math yet also flexible enough for an experienced user to just fill in the blanks if they want.

And be a mix of a web, mobile friendly, and a mobile app.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 30 September 2020, 23:07:51
I really don't get how character creation for AToW is 'crazy' or 'complicated' when module build option is as simple as addition and subtraction.

Now don't get me wrong.  That I made a spreadsheet is certainly proof enough I accept there are problems.

So yeah I am not against something being made.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Elmoth on 01 October 2020, 02:55:57
We use a very simple system based in 2d6 + mods based in your skills and equipment. Easiest equivalent in another game (it looks like we moved this even if ours is older) would be Rats in the Walls, the lovecraftian RPG. 2d6. +2 if you have advantage (ability  knowledge, equipment or a combo thereof) and -2 if you are have disadvantage or circumstances impede your performance. Difficulty tends to be a flat 8+, but can vary for preposterous action declarations like "I am a dezegra, but I am gonna hit on Malvina and she will fall for me".

Roll.
2-7. Fail and you suffer 2 consequences.
8-9 you cause a consequence (positive for you) and receive a consequence.
10+ you cause 1 consequences (or get 2 and receive 1).
12+ you cause 2 consequences (or get 3 and receive 1).

Hit points. 2 per person. 3 if you are very fit. Armor provides 1 hit point (the first one you lose).

An action with a roll is a major feature. We do not roll for each turn, but sometimes for the whole encounter (mind you, a Conversation is an encounter, as is a firefight).

So it is fairly indie.

Each consequence can be a hit point, a drawback or something that advances the story, like enemy reinforcements, or a social faux pas.

There are more nuanced, but this is the basic thing.

We tried with hero pojt s and stuff like that but did not work

 I have tried it with 3 groups. It works great for.one of them. Another more traditional RPG group thinks this is crap and another one likes it but plays little.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 01 October 2020, 10:34:17
I really don't get how character creation for AToW is 'crazy' or 'complicated' when module build option is as simple as addition and subtraction.

Now don't get me wrong.  That I made a spreadsheet is certainly proof enough I accept there are problems.

So yeah I am not against something being made.

My first time going through creation, even having a spreadsheet, was crazy with the choices and all the items I had to record and adjust. For someone who isn't technically minded (like my nephew) just getting into the game, it would be overwhelming and he'd stay away from the RPG aspect of it. Having something where he could not have to worry about the all the recording of skills/traits while going through the modules, would be a massive improvement to him playing more.

This is also why I'm asking the question. Would it be of use to anyone else? If one is made, what would others like to see in it? I know what my group wants but there is a chance I may release it into the wild and would like other opinions on it as well.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 01 October 2020, 10:54:04
My first time going through creation, even having a spreadsheet, was crazy with the choices and all the items I had to record and adjust. For someone who isn't technically minded (like my nephew) just getting into the game, it would be overwhelming and he'd stay away from the RPG aspect of it. Having something where he could not have to worry about the all the recording of skills/traits while going through the modules, would be a massive improvement to him playing more.

This is also why I'm asking the question. Would it be of use to anyone else? If one is made, what would others like to see in it? I know what my group wants but there is a chance I may release it into the wild and would like other opinions on it as well.

See I do accept overwhelming.  That is absolutely fair to me.  Because like I said I do accept there are problems.

A great phrase I once heard that I can't remember where it comes from anymore sums it up nicely to me: "Just because it is simple does not mean it is easy."

I suspect anything I can offer is something your group already has.  Mostly as long as there is a way to print the final result somehow and it handles module build it should be good.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 01 October 2020, 11:18:38
See I do accept overwhelming.  That is absolutely fair to me.  Because like I said I do accept there are problems.

A great phrase I once heard that I can't remember where it comes from anymore sums it up nicely to me: "Just because it is simple does not mean it is easy."

I suspect anything I can offer is something your group already has.  Mostly as long as there is a way to print the final result somehow and it handles module build it should be good.

All we have right now is a rather simple spreadsheet that has been cobbled together. Nothing more. Any examples others use would help me figure out feasibility beyond just my group.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Bedwyr on 01 October 2020, 11:25:46
Yeah, if we play a BT setting campaign I think the group dynamic would be either Destiny or a system even more freewheeling like the Monte Cook Cypher system. There's already resistance to too much crunch (D&D 5th >> Pathfinder). So simplified 'Mech combat and a lighter touch in the RPG bits.

That kind of approach also leaves me more room to be flexible as a DM.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 01 October 2020, 11:32:59
All we have right now is a rather simple spreadsheet that has been cobbled together. Nothing more. Any examples others use would help me figure out feasibility beyond just my group.

Certainly welcome to take a look at mine, thread link in my signature which has a link to it, I will say it doesn't do a lot of things correctly.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: ActionButler on 01 October 2020, 15:01:02
We use a very simple system based in 2d6 + mods based in your skills and equipment. Easiest equivalent in another game (it looks like we moved this even if ours is older) would be Rats in the Walls, the lovecraftian RPG. 2d6. +2 if you have advantage (ability  knowledge, equipment or a combo thereof) and -2 if you are have disadvantage or circumstances impede your performance. Difficulty tends to be a flat 8+, but can vary for preposterous action declarations like "I am a dezegra, but I am gonna hit on Malvina and she will fall for me".

Roll.
2-7. Fail and you suffer 2 consequences.
8-9 you cause a consequence (positive for you) and receive a consequence.
10+ you cause 1 consequences (or get 2 and receive 1).
12+ you cause 2 consequences (or get 3 and receive 1).

Hit points. 2 per person. 3 if you are very fit. Armor provides 1 hit point (the first one you lose).

An action with a roll is a major feature. We do not roll for each turn, but sometimes for the whole encounter (mind you, a Conversation is an encounter, as is a firefight).

So it is fairly indie.

Each consequence can be a hit point, a drawback or something that advances the story, like enemy reinforcements, or a social faux pas.

There are more nuanced, but this is the basic thing.

We tried with hero pojt s and stuff like that but did not work

 I have tried it with 3 groups. It works great for.one of them. Another more traditional RPG group thinks this is crap and another one likes it but plays little.

I'm working with Destiny now, but before that came about, I was doing some experiments with Mongoose Traveller and the various iterations of WEG's Star Wars/D6 systems.

Very cool suggestions and workarounds. Thanks, guys. I've had my eye on a few alternative systems. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the setting agnostic systems like Fate and Savage World, but I also haven't ruled them out.

On another note...

We just use alpha strike for our mech battles

How does that work out for your table? Don't get me wrong, I love Alpha Strike, but does it feel like battles go too quickly and that things die too quickly?

I really want to try blending Alpha Strike's rules with Destiny's armor diagrams to see if you can Voltron something together that looks a little bit more like Fast Battletech than OG Alpha Strike.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Elmoth on 01 October 2020, 16:51:20
Kind of, yes. They are fast. However for small RPG actions we use a to hit roll for every point of damage the mech has. So if you have a Wolverine 6K (3 damage) you roll to hit 3 times. So damage tends to be lower on a per-attack basis, but at the same time more consistent turn over turn.

The fast paced battles are OK for us. As is the general lack of detail. We add that through description ourselves. A loss of armor might be that, 1 armor point, but it can also be narrated as your lower leg being stripped and then the player worries and has a narrative entry to describe how he turns the mech to avoid exposing the damaged left leg and moves in a weird pattern because of that. :P Most of the time we try to avoid pitched battles and go for objectives. Otherwise it gets boring to play with a (fairly static) lance time and time again. And we like light mechs, so H&R ad target snatching are common ploys for us. Get in, get the target, get out. try to avoid incoming fire (armor costs money!).

Basically we tr to cram a AS game AND a RPG gaming session in the same afternoon if possible. Sometimes 2 games. it can be done with AS and 4-6 participants at the table. the battles are acually faster than some tavern brawls and investigations in the library.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 October 2020, 02:23:59
I used a modified version of MW2. (currently playing Shatterzone using a GURPS conversion I made)
A lot of what I used in on this site in the Fan Designs and Rules section and a web site by Jesper. (here are some links)
https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home (https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home)
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/mechwarrior-second-edition-optional-rule/ (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/mechwarrior-second-edition-optional-rule/)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Giorgio76 on 25 October 2020, 04:00:56
KS BT CI Update #127; ATOW RPG Reprint (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/450703636/battletech-clan-invasion/posts/2996563)
.
I made a new thread on the ATOW forums to discuss this new information.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Col Toda on 09 December 2020, 04:19:31
The same as any potential game . Covid halted or slowed down printing ques so no management is going give an advance on a writer for any dead tree product period . It would needlessly tie up capital that is being spent on tests or PPE .Ask again in 2 years when the answer Can Be Different.  Paying too far ahead for a printing run also ties up capital.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: kronovan on 03 January 2021, 15:47:49
To me the future of ATOW was sealed when MW:D was released - in that I don't see much of any future. And I'm not saying that because I've moved to MW:D; I ran the beta and neither I nor my group cared for it. The MW:D PDF is now a gold seller on drivethrurpg though, which isn't an easy milestone to achieve. So I just don't see CGL putting a lot of effort into an improved ATOW and printing hardcovers of it, when their other RPG is selling well in digital format. Yes I'm aware CGL has entertained the idea of reprinting ATOW - I'll believe it when I see it.

There's also been zero effort by CGL to get a Virtual Table Top edition of the rules. I can't get my ATOW players around a real world table, so not having that has meant no BT RPG sessions for us since the spring.  There's the fan made ATOW hack for Fantasy Grounds, but it's unofficial and IMO stills needs work. It'd be nice if CGL got in step with the 2020s (actually more like the 2010s) and embraced online play, as that would bring needed accessories like nice, artfully crafted character and Mech tokens into the market.

Currently I'm trying to adapt the Battletech/Inner Sphere setting to Mongoose Traveller 2.0, as it's also 2d6 based and I find the rules more fluid.  Tweaking MgT 2 careers to better support the IS verse is a bit of a challenge, but it's proving doable. The best thing about an adaptation of it to MgT 2, is those rules have excellent support for the Fantasy Ground VTT, so my players and I can play again. If I'm successful in my current effort, I can't see going back to any official edition of a Battletech/MechWarrior RPG.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 03 January 2021, 16:01:45
For online Roll20 also has some limited support for AToW but yeah, even I in my desire to defend AToW have to concede that it is rather unlikely it'll be re-printed or even revised/revamped.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 January 2021, 17:08:45
I'll defend AToW to my dying breath.  Does it have issues?  Sure.  But it's far and away closer to the RPG system Battletech needs than anything else that's ever been published.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 03 January 2021, 20:47:14
I'll defend AToW to my dying breath.  Does it have issues?  Sure.  But it's far and away closer to the RPG system Battletech needs than anything else that's ever been published.

Sure - but half of it needs to be thrown away simply to get rid of the stuff a RPG doesn't need and provide room for all the missing information and rules it does need.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 January 2021, 20:55:54
I wouldn't go so far as to say half, and I've long held that fiction does NOT belong in rule books.  My sig block is my start on things that need to change.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 03 January 2021, 22:56:34
I wouldn't go so far as to say half, and I've long held that fiction does NOT belong in rule books.  My sig block is my start on things that need to change.

Fiction has its place....if only to set the mood, describe the mythos, setup the universe.

It is something that isn't critical but as a way to set up the feel and flavour for players new to the setting, it can work very well.

And yes, half might be an exaggeration but it isn't much of one.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Maelwys on 04 January 2021, 01:56:39
To me the future of ATOW was sealed when MW:D was released - in that I don't see much of any future. And I'm not saying that because I've moved to MW:D; I ran the beta and neither I nor my group cared for it. The MW:D PDF is now a gold seller on drivethrurpg though, which isn't an easy milestone to achieve. So I just don't see CGL putting a lot of effort into an improved ATOW and printing hardcovers of it, when their other RPG is selling well in digital format. Yes I'm aware CGL has entertained the idea of reprinting ATOW - I'll believe it when I see it.

On the other hand, the RPG stats provided in the Shrapnel series are in ATOW stats and not Destiny, so its not completely gone.

edit
Though strangely they're missing the Dark Ages equipment availability rating
/edit
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 04 January 2021, 03:54:23
Fiction has its place....if only to set the mood, describe the mythos, setup the universe.

It is something that isn't critical but as a way to set up the feel and flavour for players new to the setting, it can work very well.

And yes, half might be an exaggeration but it isn't much of one.
That function of fiction can be served by ONE story at the beginning of the book.  Not every darn chapter. especially on pages without page numbers.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Atlas3060 on 04 January 2021, 06:25:22
I'll defend AToW to my dying breath.  Does it have issues?  Sure.  But it's far and away closer to the RPG system Battletech needs than anything else that's ever been published.
Agreed, AToW has a decent mix of an extension for Total Warfare without suffering the pitfalls of MW1 and MW2 edition syndrome.
It trimmed down the MW3 list of skills and traits to a manageable number.

I'm not even going to touch the "trim fiction" part because that's not part of the ruleset itself.
That's more of a critique on how they did the core rulebooks back then, which I'm on the fence about given when I read them.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 04 January 2021, 13:03:28
The problem with the fiction is that CGL have so heavily invested/integrated everything into one official setting.

If the rules were setting agnostic and the sheer amount of lore of the official setting were not the huge barrier to entry that it is to many people I'd be all for getting rid of it entirely from the RPG.

Since neither of those things are going to change I will defend the fiction in AToW as it is.  It may be a bit much for a veteran like Daryk but for getting someone new into the universe?  I honestly think it is about right but if really pushed I'd actually almost say there isn't enough.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 04 January 2021, 17:38:38
My main issue is the way they put it in the book, it actively hinders a person looking for a rule.  The didn't put page numbers on the fiction pages.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 04 January 2021, 18:42:44
I would not call that anything more than a minor irritation at most as the sections with rules do have page numbers and the trend toward searchable PDFs over hardcopy, especially at the gaming table, will do a lot to negate any such problems.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 04 January 2021, 19:18:01
Having had to flip through physical rule books at a con will scar one for life.  Guilty as charged as being a "veteran" (grognard).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Grand_dm on 04 January 2021, 20:59:49
Having just started playing ATOW, we all found the book akin to deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls. It reminds me of an IKEA manual. A cleaned up new version, condensed and simplified would be great.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 04 January 2021, 21:05:49
If you need any help, just PM me!  :)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Col Toda on 06 January 2021, 02:05:36
Now that I bought Destiny . I am convinced that it is not even remotely comprehensive enough to satisfy any long established RPG groups . I am shocked at the direction they took . I exspected them to do a RPG on a priority trait character building scheme  much like older versions of Shadowrun to simplify character creation which was the biggest possible only sticking point of most players .
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 06 January 2021, 20:42:38
ATOW could also do with some skill pruning. We don't need two different skills for throwing things or making close combat attacks, especially in a game where firing lasers, gyrojets, and auto-rifles all fall under the same skill in spite of how different all of those weapons are from one another. Or shifts in skill tiers because of an initial bush league rush.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 06 January 2021, 21:29:56
I think they got the skill list "close enough".  Specializations still exist, after all, and are less desirable than in earlier editions.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 08 January 2021, 19:08:55
For the most part, I agree, but some splits just feel weird (lasers, gyrojets, and slugs in the same skill but it's two different skills to throw knives and grenades?), and the justification for changing the tier of a skill as the level increases just seems utterly backward to the point where even in BT's generous interpretation of reality, it just doesn't fly. To me, they don't even seem like they would be all that big of a deal to cut, especially given how much changeover there's been in the mechanics of vehicle equipment and weaponry. We've gotten significant addenda to battle armor weapons since TacOps debuted, like the BA LB-X AC and tube artillery, special armor enjoyed a much wider distribution, and there are all sorts of minutiae that get refined, so why not the conspicuous rough edges on the skill list?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 08 January 2021, 19:14:37
Tier skills actually make sense to me.  Some things are complex enough that it takes innate talent to continuously improve.  For everyone else, they need just a bit more training to achieve the same level of performance.  But once the less talented masses get past the "hump", they improve just like the gifted.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 08 January 2021, 21:40:09
Plus keep in mind that in every case where such a bump exists depending on your attribute modifiers you'll probably now have a net gain to make accomplishing tasks even easier.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 08 January 2021, 22:08:48
It's definitely a "rich get richer" situation.  But AToW appropriately costs being "rich".  Attribute scores of 7 (not to mention 10) are expensive.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 09 January 2021, 18:21:04
Tier skills actually make sense to me.  Some things are complex enough that it takes innate talent to continuously improve.  For everyone else, they need just a bit more training to achieve the same level of performance.  But once the less talented masses get past the "hump", they improve just like the gifted.

They strike me as akin to the acerbically patronizing one-dot descriptions for skills that you could find in the early days of World of Darkness games, like Computer 1 being "you can boot up a video game" or Drive 1 being "you can drive an automatic". Eventually, the writing moved past that and noted that you didn't need the respective Ability to do either one of those tasks; this is where I'm used to actual ratings in a skill being with regard to character competence. I'm not approaching things from the standpoint of which Attribute or Attributes you can pull in for bonuses (let's face it, the talented are always going to be talented, there's no point in using that as a measurement), but the basic difficulty of the activity in question.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 09 January 2021, 18:30:21
I think AToW got after that aspect with 0-level skills.  And for reference, the tiered skills are: Art, Computers, Interest, Martial Arts, Melee Weapons, and Prestidigitation.  All of those make sense to me.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 09 January 2021, 20:23:44
I'm pretty well with Daryk on this.

Computers is a really good one.  There are people who struggle to even use a search engine.  There are people who can dabble with e-mail and various productivity suites.  Then there are the true masters of the craft that can write scripts, program new applications, hack, and get computers to talk to each other.  Yet I would absolutely say they all use fundamentally the same skill.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 09 January 2021, 21:15:48
Thanks Monbvol!  :thumbsup:

I forgot to mention that I added another tiered skill in my AToW Tweaks thread (linked in my sig block): Gun Kata.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Sharpnel on 10 January 2021, 04:27:09
Thanks Monbvol!  :thumbsup:

I forgot to mention that I added another tiered skill in my AToW Tweaks thread (linked in my sig block): Gun Kata.
I wholly approve this tiered skill. Equilibrium is one of my favorite films.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 10 January 2021, 06:30:44
Thanks!  It was fun to put together.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 11 January 2021, 23:14:26
I'm pretty well with Daryk on this.

Computers is a really good one.  There are people who struggle to even use a search engine.  There are people who can dabble with e-mail and various productivity suites.  Then there are the true masters of the craft that can write scripts, program new applications, hack, and get computers to talk to each other.  Yet I would absolutely say they all use fundamentally the same skill.

By the description of the Computers Skill, those basic tasks don't require having even a +0 in it. Explicitly, ready-made applications don't count. Hence, my confusion at why such tier changes exist, as other skill descriptions don't quite match up with that scheme, either, but less from the description specifically calling out the "low tier" examples as specifically not things that the skill does and more because it's odd that, in a game where specifically-trained super soldiers were wrecked by soldiers recruited from the far and wide expanse beyond those of said super soldiers, there would be such a bias against "crude streetfighting" or "rudimentary knife-fighting".
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 11 January 2021, 23:48:28
Yes and no.

Writing scripts, applications, and actually establishing a connection to an information network are all explicitly something you need to have the computer skill for and AToW backs that up in the description.

Relevant citation:
Quote from: AToW page 145
The Computers Skill has no subskills, but the tiered nature of this Skill helps
mark the difference between computer operations and computer programming.
Skilled computer operators can take full advantage of the computer’s capabilities,
including the ability to quickly navigate the memory and storage devices attached
to the computer to find hidden data, hard-to-reach network sites, and even diagnose
software and hardware problems. Programmers, meanwhile, can create, alter and
manipulate software, or even hack through software security and firewalls to dig up
ultra-sensitive data.
Tiered Skill: To reflect the difference between casual computer operations and more
sophisticated programming and hacking, the Computers Skill is represented in A Time
of War as a Tiered Skill, progressing from simple computer operations at the Basic four
levels (0 through 3) to more advanced programming levels where the user can create
and manipulate programs rather than simply running them, and bypass virtual security

As someone with a BS in Computer Networking and having lots of experience helping people do simple tasks I'd say a much better break down(and how I'd run it at my table) that isn't too far off that description would be:

Untrained: How much the character struggles to do rudimentary tasks depends on dice rolls and relevant attributes.
0-3: The character can do the basics on up to being able to do some basic trouble shooting.
4-10: Now the character can start putting together your own applications, circumvent virtual security, establish new connections to information systems, and even assemble a computer from relevant parts.

Also I do have some slight experience with the differences between hand to hand combat and using a weapon.  The skills/techniques are actually really quite different.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 12 January 2021, 04:22:01
The funniest thing about that is that those genetically engineered super soldiers get Attribute bonuses, but Attribute modifiers to skills are specifically excluded from the conversion to TW level play.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Maelwys on 12 January 2021, 12:07:31
The attribute modifiers doesn't, but the Field Aptitude does...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 12 January 2021, 17:34:18
That can be chalked up to intensive training, I think.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 12 January 2021, 20:29:02
Have to say, I am not a fan of the Tier system.
But it's not one of the major issues with the game.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 12 January 2021, 20:35:21
Yes and no.

Writing scripts, applications, and actually establishing a connection to an information network are all explicitly something you need to have the computer skill for and AToW backs that up in the description.

...Yes? That wasn't what I was talking about. Were you? Because I thought it was entirely about use of ready-made applications.

Quote
Relevant citation:
As someone with a BS in Computer Networking and having lots of experience helping people do simple tasks I'd say a much better break down(and how I'd run it at my table) that isn't too far off that description would be:

Untrained: How much the character struggles to do rudimentary tasks depends on dice rolls and relevant attributes.
0-3: The character can do the basics on up to being able to do some basic trouble shooting.
4-10: Now the character can start putting together your own applications, circumvent virtual security, establish new connections to information systems, and even assemble a computer from relevant parts.

Here's where we get to a vital disconnect - my perception and preferences of game design have it so that the skill just covers everything, rather than siloing off certain functions by skill level, because that eats up word count and cognitive load, and given the superhuman skills sidebar, the progression isn't even guaranteed to go up all the way in every game. Better to say that the basics don't require the skill, and that the skill involves complicated applications of the field. For people that want a character to be really in the dark, use Gremlins?

Quote
Also I do have some slight experience with the differences between hand to hand combat and using a weapon.  The skills/techniques are actually really quite different.

Not what my gripe was in this instance, and a number of other people on the internet have given dissenting opinions on that matter. I'll break it down as such:

Neither skill as they are now seems to present the kind of comfortable learning curve where tiering them differently would make sense (though, as noted above, this setup is rather a bit of an alien approach to me). Especially not given the textual description, which seems to dump on certain methods of gaining experience in fighting in favor of some nebulous formal source that couldn't have existed if there weren't some way to get there without it existing in the first place. The game only cares about the bonus size, anyway.

(in this context, it seems like the window of tiering can be moved toward whether or not you have an aptitude in a skill or not).

Moving on to the other gripe I had addressed earlier regarding fusing the two together, we have a number of very disparate weapons combined into various ranged skills. I'm fairly certain that a laser is going to be very different from a slugthrower, which in turn is drastically different from a gyrojet, sonic stunner, min-flamer, or gauss smg. It doesn't matter; they're all under Small Arms, and their bigger versions are under Support Weapons or a vehicle-based Gunnery concentration.

This is not strict reality*; it is often reality-checked, but reality doesn't get the most say in it. Game design does, and game design is mostly concerned with character niches. That's why we have separate divisions of Piloting and Gunnery for different vehicles, and why, in past editions, there was substantially less differentiation in things not 'Mech (one Gunnery skill for any type of conventional vehicle, for example), and why there was a holistic Technician/'Mech to handle any systems commonly found on 'Mechs instead of different callouts for Myomer, Jet, Nuclear, and Weapons.

That's why you combine Unarmed and Armed into just one. It's a particular niche common to infantry and spec ops, and maybe some intelligence operatives. It's used to incapacitate or kill people without alerting guards immediately due to explosions or muzzle flashes, and to that end, it matters very little exactly what means a character uses to do it, much like how the game just wants ground pounders to get out and shoot, hence one Small Arms skill.

*Much like most of BT.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 12 January 2021, 20:43:54
So.... someone with a 0 level of Computers skill would be able to program a mainframe?  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 13 January 2021, 00:38:10
So.... someone with a 0 level of Computers skill would be able to program a mainframe?  ???

The rules could actually be interpreted that way.

And I think that is the crux of the problem.

...Yes? That wasn't what I was talking about. Were you? Because I thought it was entirely about use of ready-made applications.

That is where the Yes and no comes in for Computers.  No you don't have to roll for ready made applications by the rules unless there is some factor at play.  AToW gives examples.  I only add Untrained to the list for why a character needs to roll to use a ready made application.

Quote
Here's where we get to a vital disconnect - my perception and preferences of game design have it so that the skill just covers everything, rather than siloing off certain functions by skill level, because that eats up word count and cognitive load, and given the superhuman skills sidebar, the progression isn't even guaranteed to go up all the way in every game. Better to say that the basics don't require the skill, and that the skill involves complicated applications of the field. For people that want a character to be really in the dark, use Gremlins?

Computers does.

I think the disconnect we're having is because I completely failed to explain myself properly.

It's less that I'm gating functions or that AToW is and more trying to explain that at some point there is a threshold that separates the true masters of their craft and those who haven't put in the dedication to get there yet.

Also Gremlins is way over severe for my tastes to represent someone in the dark.  I worked in a computer lab during college and part of that was tutoring senior citizens who were still what AToW would consider Untrained and I never had one actually wreck a computer but man did they struggle with some pretty rudimentary stuff.  So like I said Gremlins would be an extra step beyond Untrained in my mind.

Quote
Not what my gripe was in this instance, and a number of other people on the internet have given dissenting opinions on that matter. I'll break it down as such:

Neither skill as they are now seems to present the kind of comfortable learning curve where tiering them differently would make sense (though, as noted above, this setup is rather a bit of an alien approach to me). Especially not given the textual description, which seems to dump on certain methods of gaining experience in fighting in favor of some nebulous formal source that couldn't have existed if there weren't some way to get there without it existing in the first place. The game only cares about the bonus size, anyway.

(in this context, it seems like the window of tiering can be moved toward whether or not you have an aptitude in a skill or not).

I myself tend to think of it this way:

Untrained: Anyone can throw a punch or hit someone with a stick but if the other person is actually trained you're at a huge disadvantage.

0-3: The character is flailing about less now and is able to hold their own better.  The character can even try some of the fancy stuff like limb locks or half swording but they're still really coming to grips with such things.

4-10: The character is really starting to get the most out of the skill now.

Quote
Moving on to the other gripe I had addressed earlier regarding fusing the two together, we have a number of very disparate weapons combined into various ranged skills. I'm fairly certain that a laser is going to be very different from a slugthrower, which in turn is drastically different from a gyrojet, sonic stunner, min-flamer, or gauss smg. It doesn't matter; they're all under Small Arms, and their bigger versions are under Support Weapons or a vehicle-based Gunnery concentration.

This is not strict reality*; it is often reality-checked, but reality doesn't get the most say in it. Game design does, and game design is mostly concerned with character niches. That's why we have separate divisions of Piloting and Gunnery for different vehicles, and why, in past editions, there was substantially less differentiation in things not 'Mech (one Gunnery skill for any type of conventional vehicle, for example), and why there was a holistic Technician/'Mech to handle any systems commonly found on 'Mechs instead of different callouts for Myomer, Jet, Nuclear, and Weapons.

That's why you combine Unarmed and Armed into just one. It's a particular niche common to infantry and spec ops, and maybe some intelligence operatives. It's used to incapacitate or kill people without alerting guards immediately due to explosions or muzzle flashes, and to that end, it matters very little exactly what means a character uses to do it, much like how the game just wants ground pounders to get out and shoot, hence one Small Arms skill.

*Much like most of BT.

Ah now I understand a bit better.

I'll admit this is a tough one for me now that I understand the logic.

I like that unarmed and armed is separated at the RPG level but you raise a good point about internal consistency.

Also I've said a few times myself that I wouldn't complain if Survival and Thrown both lost their subskills and instead used them as ready made example skill specializations.

But I can understand Small Arms being the way it is because fundamentally it's only as factors start mounting that all those Small Arms being fundamentally 'point and shoot' starts to evolve enough for the difference between a laser rifle and a gyrojet to matter.

Which goes back to my first hand experience that if you have even so much as a knife how drastically different the techniques(or skill if you prefer) is from if you don't have one.

Which ultimately makes the question where does one draw the line and make it consistent?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 January 2021, 18:17:10
I could see Thrown making the subskill to specialization leap, but Survival is too much, I think.  There is nothing at all the same about surviving in a desert or a jungle.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 13 January 2021, 20:17:11
I just don't get why the tiered skills didn't have a higher TN and a bonus to simple tasks. That seems like a much less wordy way to get any of those goals done.

(And while the rules technically could allow a +0 character to attempt program a mainframe, it would either be highly unlikely to result in usable code, or take a very, very long time to work.)

I could see Thrown making the subskill to specialization leap, but Survival is too much, I think.  There is nothing at all the same about surviving in a desert or a jungle.

That would fit better in a BT RPG where skills went Beam Weapons, Slug Throwers, and Missiles instead of Small Arms, Support Weapons, and many different versions of Gunnery, each specific to a vehicle, even when the vehicles would probably use very similar approaches, like BattleMechs and ProtoMechs or ASFs, VTOLs, and Conventional Fighters. I mean, in the latter case, VTOLs and CFs are just using the atmospheric version of what ASFs have to deal with when in-atmosphere. All three of those units can carry hardpoints and strafe, if you take the optional VTOL rules in TacOps as a reflection of in-setting technicalities. And, once upon a time, they all did use the same Gunnery skill, but not in AToW.

In general, my preference is for as few skills as possible covering a broad range of tasks. Skill lists from 1980s games that felt the need to pull everything apart just seem needlessly cumbersome... especially since I got in on the second editions of SR and MW, where the skill lists were quite pared down compared to fare like CP 2020 or D&D's ever-expanding proficiency lists. SR even combined all of the separate physical activity skills into Athletics, which MW1 also did. I'm told that's generally a good policy; the only case for it I can see in the heavily vehicle-based BT is that it wants to make sure that infantry sweat from the exertion of learning somewhere between five and seven such skills, but even if that's the case, why should their players have to join in when the object of the game is to have the players and GM have fun? There are other ways to partition that sub-niche; most SPAs that want to establish that kind of rarefied expertise require specializations, for example, and MW2 had different specialization effects for Running based on long-distance or sprinting.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 January 2021, 20:32:36
MW2 was unarguably simpler.  But it had a horrible power creep problem partially as a result.  Complication in the skill list is one way to fight power creep.  I think MW3 went too far in that direction, and AToW was a step back from it.  With the limited number of tiered skills in AToW, I don't see it as a problem for the vast majoirty of players.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 13 January 2021, 21:05:57
I could see Thrown making the subskill to specialization leap, but Survival is too much, I think.  There is nothing at all the same about surviving in a desert or a jungle.

Watch some Bear Grillis.  He gets about some pretty varied terrain and yet he's using fundamentally the same techniques.

The most I'd go for as a compromise then would really be is force a specialization on Survival.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 January 2021, 21:09:40
The counter argument I have to that is BT Survival includes some non-Terran terrain.  There's more variety out there than Bear has had to deal with.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 January 2021, 22:20:35
One of the biggest issues with the Tier system is character creation in general.
It's hard to make a pc that has both the linked attributes above +0 and still have them be viable as their main role.leading to a sudden drop in skill bonus that feels unnatural.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 January 2021, 00:12:38
The counter argument I have to that is BT Survival includes some non-Terran terrain.  There's more variety out there than Bear has had to deal with.

My counter to that is if the character is in an environment where the same techniques Bear uses won't cut it then it is highly probable that the character will be dead before even having to roll Survival becomes an issue.

One of the biggest issues with the Tier system is character creation in general.
It's hard to make a pc that has both the linked attributes above +0 and still have them be viable as their main role.leading to a sudden drop in skill bonus that feels unnatural.

It is a little difficult at 5000 XP yes but it is possible and happens quite a bit in my group and has yet to be an issue keeping characters from being good at their main job.

A lot of it comes down to how many skills are linked to Dexterity, Reflexes, and Intelligence.

To correct Daryk a little the passage in AToW doesn't say never ever do characters get their link attribute bonuses when converting over to TW or AS but that the default is they don't and the GM can allow it if they so desire.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 January 2021, 01:24:20
MW2 was unarguably simpler.  But it had a horrible power creep problem partially as a result.  Complication in the skill list is one way to fight power creep.  I think MW3 went too far in that direction, and AToW was a step back from it.  With the limited number of tiered skills in AToW, I don't see it as a problem for the vast majoirty of players.

I have multiple issues with this depiction of MW2.
1.termanolagy: Power creep has nothing to do with level. It refers to when a games source books (mostly Rifts) have progressively more powerful classes and abilities to drive new book sales
2. GM: having played with multiple GM and run the game many times myself, the issues of fast advancement for what I've seen tend to be due to GMs awarding to many AP and skill points between sessions and player not being driven to take skills other then gunnery and piloting because the GM is basically running a battletech board game with RPG stats.
3. Philosophy: Call me old-school, but to me RPGS are about playing heroes not the average Joe. You don't play star wars to play trooper number two. You play to be the new Han Solo. RPG characters are suppose to be larger than life. And not the average grunts.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 January 2021, 04:26:25
Monbvol: Belters with the right packages would absolutely need to know how to survive on an airless rock.  And I can see even regular spaceship crew learning techniques to stretch their life support.  Planets with native life forms could have a whole catalog of "don't eat that" completely outside of terraformed stuff.  Those are the kinds of things I'm thinking of.

As for it being a little difficult to get more than one attribute of 7, that depends on if you use the aging rules.  They make stuff like that MUCH easier

And while you're right about that rule being optional, the default is to not use them, and I confirmed with TPTB that was a deliberate decision, not an oversight.

Victor_shaw: You're correct on #1, sorry for being imprecise.  On #2, the problem comes from using the recommended awards in the book. I lay that at the feet of the system more than the GM.  #3 is a matter of taste.  As I've said before, in my opinion, NPCs are people too.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 January 2021, 11:52:38
As for it being a little difficult to get more than one attribute of 7, that depends on if you use the aging rules.  They make stuff like that MUCH easier
This is another issues to me when it comes to AToW. IMHO the system in place in AToW seems to make age the only "real factor" in determining Skills/Attributes/Traits.
For example: Wayne Gretzky didn't take 40 years to become "The Great One", in fact his career was over by then. He was naturally skilled and while he dedicated a great deal of time to honing his skills, he was 19 when he started in the NHL and was 40 when he retired. The point and issues is that AToW does nothing to reflect this. For a more in universe example Kai Allard-Liao was only 23 when he became the Solaris Champion. Again AToW does nothing to reflect this natural ability, where it is totally possible to reflect this in MW2.

You're correct on #1, sorry for being imprecise. 
NP as I assumed you meant it was easy to powergame.  Which some may see as a failing, but I see as true to life to the setting. Lets face it, Prodigies are ramped in the Battletech Universe and fiction. Also, just wanted it to be clear as the wrong word choice can give a game a reputation that it didn't earn.

On #2, the problem comes from using the recommended awards in the book. I lay that at the feet of the system more than the GM. 
When looking at it that way, most if not all RPG have the same issues (especially in new editions) of the developers overestimating what awards the players should receive. The Issues IMHO is the perceived play hours vs. actual play hours. It has always appeared to me that developers design games rewards with the 4 hours once a month time in their heads. Where in my group for example its more like 6 hours once a week. There is also the issues of when you distribute AP. The rule tell you to distribute it at the end of a mission, then go on to say in longer missions, ones more then one session (which is most of them) to distribute some of them after each session. The book is also confusing on just how much to award as it contradicts itself in the award section. First it tell the GM to award them based on a combination of difficulty/performance (group)/performance (individual) then goes on to give a group performance chart awarding way more AP. The uses of "Mission" seems to be another sticking point for most GMs. Where I see it as one big overarching group of sub-missions to accomplish a major goal, others may see getting into a barfight as a mission.


#3 is a matter of taste.  As I've said before, in my opinion, NPCs are people too.

I also see an NPC as different from a mook.
NPC: Big baddy, His Lieutenants, Major players
Mooks: Average soldier, guard, farmer, etc.

The Average soldier/guard/farmer IMHO should not be on par with the PCs.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 January 2021, 12:03:56
Monbvol: Belters with the right packages would absolutely need to know how to survive on an airless rock.  And I can see even regular spaceship crew learning techniques to stretch their life support.  Planets with native life forms could have a whole catalog of "don't eat that" completely outside of terraformed stuff.  Those are the kinds of things I'm thinking of.

As for it being a little difficult to get more than one attribute of 7, that depends on if you use the aging rules.  They make stuff like that MUCH easier

And while you're right about that rule being optional, the default is to not use them, and I confirmed with TPTB that was a deliberate decision, not an oversight.

How to conserve air would already be covered by situations where air is at a premium, like say high altitude survival for when someone is stranded on a tall mountain range.  Likewise recognizing what is safe to eat and what is not is largely already covered.  There are plenty of plants on Earth you do not want to eat if you want to survive.

Even if that is not a compelling enough argument I'll also toss in if the fundamentals are really that different maybe a different skill should be called for instead of Survival.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 January 2021, 17:28:04
I contend TPTB had a similar discussion, and the compromise was subskills.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 January 2021, 17:46:22
For me it just makes more sense that if you need to make sure you get all 48 hours of air from a suit that it'd be a straight up Will attribute check rather than Survival.  Vacuum isn't even listed as a suggested environment in the book either.

Likewise to me it'd probably be more appropriate to make identifying local plants and if they are safe or not to eat Interest/Xenobotany(planet in question here) because even the authors call out going to a different planet can invalidate your survival skill completely even if it is an environment you have via subskill.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 January 2021, 18:05:07
I'll buy 48 hours on a WIL check, but anything past that requires knowledge of tricks (like, say, electrolyzing your water supply WHILE you're wearing the suit without electrocuting yourself).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 14 January 2021, 18:39:28
I'll buy 48 hours on a WIL check, but anything past that requires knowledge of tricks (like, say, electrolyzing your water supply WHILE you're wearing the suit without electrocuting yourself).

In this specific case...

What does the Survival skill do?
It allows you to survive.

There are three usual criteria....
Find shelter. This would mostly be find somewhere covered, out of the elements, dry, secure and away from animals. There'd be various techniques to improve a shelter, or assist in finding one, but the most environment specific feature would probably be in constructing a shelter. Building an igloo would require different techniques than building a treehouse or using bamboo and leaves to create a tent. Different environments also have different dangers...floods aren't likely in arctic areas, but blizzards are and building off the floor to escape insects and snakes is often more a concern in jungle regions.

Finding water and recognising that is safe, or treating it to make it so, would also be ubiquitous. Building a solar still, construction of a filter, the desirability of boiling and avoiding areas where water and life don't mix.

While there are environmental concerns with water and shelter, the most applicable justification for specialisation in the survival skill would be finding food. There would be a huge amount of variety between environments as looking for food in a jungle is very different from a desert is very different from a tundra, etc

Two parts would be locating food and making sure it is safe to eat.

Overall....it strikes me that specialisation is both justified - someone trained to survive in a desert environment would have an advantage - and yet there is a huge degree of overlap in the skillsets. Even with food, basic rules for testing foods for safety could be applied to most regardless of specific environment and, even on Earth, the Sahara and Gobi are very different, as are the Arctic and Antarctic.

Specialisation feels right but is arguably unnecessary....unless you also assume that it affects the ability of the player to survive exposure. Survival (vacuum) trains you how to increase survival when exposed to vacuum whereas Survival (Jungle) teaches you how to survive the heat and humidity of a Jungle, Survival (Desert) teaches you to move at night and water conservation tricks, etc

The skill represents more than knowledge, but your ability to tolerate the conditions as well as the general tricks to ensure water is clean and food is safe.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 January 2021, 19:12:21
I'll buy 48 hours on a WIL check, but anything past that requires knowledge of tricks (like, say, electrolyzing your water supply WHILE you're wearing the suit without electrocuting yourself).

I'd call that Technician/Electronics with a penalty not Survival/Vacuum.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 January 2021, 19:21:21
My point being there would be a number of tricks like that, and the only thing linking them is Survival.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 January 2021, 19:31:27
My point being there would be a number of tricks like that, and the only thing linking them is Survival.

My point being if there is that much of a link(because breaking down water for air is a neat trick to know not just if you're in space waiting for rescue) then at best making the environments specializations rather than distinct subskills makes enough logical sense that for the sake of gameplay and not dumping dozens of skills on a character just to make them actually able to do their job is a compromise I'm absolutely willing to make.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 January 2021, 19:32:54
Right, and I think TPTB had a camp advocating completely separate skills, and subskills were the compromise that resulted.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 January 2021, 20:57:20
Right, and I think TPTB had a camp advocating completely separate skills, and subskills were the compromise that resulted.

The end mechanical result of that decision is the subskill approach may as well be distinct skills.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 January 2021, 21:01:14
Then we know which camp "won".
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 14 January 2021, 21:58:41
MW2 was unarguably simpler.  But it had a horrible power creep problem partially as a result.  Complication in the skill list is one way to fight power creep.  I think MW3 went too far in that direction, and AToW was a step back from it.  With the limited number of tiered skills in AToW, I don't see it as a problem for the vast majoirty of players.

MW2's problems were definitely not from having a comparatively svelte skill list. They almost certainly involved the interaction of Attributes and Skills, how some Attributes really should have been broken up, and an Attribute that limited skill ratings even though it didn't even make sense in-genre to make that kind of linkage (learning things is complex, and having one Attribute for it is about as bad as having one labeled "Intelligence").
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 January 2021, 22:01:45
Then we know which camp "won".

Which is a shame and something that can be fixed for a future revision.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 January 2021, 04:21:38
Attributes were absolutely king in MW2.  If you didn't take at least two 6s, you were unnecessarily crippling yourself.

monbvol: We can agree on that.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 15 January 2021, 16:07:17
Attributes were absolutely king in MW2.  If you didn't take at least two 6s, you were unnecessarily crippling yourself.

monbvol: We can agree on that.

Unless you are taking priority 4 in attributes it is hard to justify two 6's. in the normal priority system.
The issues is the x2 cost of INT.
From experience, Players who do this tend not to last long as they have neither the skills nor the survivability to last long outside their mechs.
And even with the Flexible Priority option you are limiting your choses quite a bit by doing so.
 
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 January 2021, 19:35:44
Going 4 priortity for Attributes was never a problem for me back in the day.  I was always able to get sufficient out of 'mech skills (if not what I really wanted, which is why I prefer AToW).  High enough Attributes made unskilled rolls less scary.  And 6 INT was mandatory in any case.  It contributed to too many skills.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 15 January 2021, 21:01:23
The only characters that could get by without massive investments into Intuition were, perhaps, armored infantry, on account of how Piloting/Battlesuit became an Athletic skill in the Companion. Which you could get at low base TNs pretty readily if you were an elemental, or a puny freebirth with merely Exceptional BLD and/or REF. And even then, you'd be sacrificing a great deal of your ability to shoot and function in other capacities.

Everyone else absolutely needs it as high as possible. You don't get nearly enough skill points to compensate with higher skill ratings, which are capped at LRN at chargen, anyway (not that you'll ever be able to scrounge enough points together to get even close to that maximum if you get it at 5 or 6).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 16 January 2021, 07:21:50
Going 4 priortity for Attributes was never a problem for me back in the day.  I was always able to get sufficient out of 'mech skills (if not what I really wanted, which is why I prefer AToW).  High enough Attributes made unskilled rolls less scary.  And 6 INT was mandatory in any case.  It contributed to too many skills.

Sorry the math on this doesn't hold up in the system.
Lets take the standard spread using Priority 4 (30) and the tactic you are presenting.
BLD 4, REF 6, INT 6, LRN 4, CHA 4. With this your max starting Skill level is 4 and base skills and attribute saves are.
Athletic 4/8, Physical 2/6, Mental 4/8, Social 4/8 

With an even build you get
BLD 5, REF 5, INT 5, LRN 5, CHA 5. With this your max starting Skill level is 5 and base skills and attribute saves are.
Athletic 3/8, Physical 3/8, Mental 3/8, Social 3/8 

The only thing you are getting from this max-out is a one Point advantage in Physical Skills, but are losing one point in all other skills.

The only characters that could get by without massive investments into Intuition were, perhaps, armored infantry, on account of how Piloting/Battlesuit became an Athletic skill in the Companion. Which you could get at low base TNs pretty readily if you were an elemental, or a puny freebirth with merely Exceptional BLD and/or REF. And even then, you'd be sacrificing a great deal of your ability to shoot and function in other capacities.

Everyone else absolutely needs it as high as possible. You don't get nearly enough skill points to compensate with higher skill ratings, which are capped at LRN at chargen, anyway (not that you'll ever be able to scrounge enough points together to get even close to that maximum if you get it at 5 or 6).

Never stated that INT was not an (Most) important attribute. Was just pointing out that you did not have to sacrifice other attributes to always max out just two.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 16 January 2021, 07:37:51
It's been a while, but I think I went for 3 CHA and 5 LRN.  I may have even dropped BLD to 3.  Like I said, not great out of 'mech sklls.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 16 January 2021, 07:47:35
It's been a while, but I think I went for 3 CHA and 5 LRN.  I may have even dropped BLD to 3.  Like I said, not great out of 'mech sklls.

And there lies another issue with this type of build in and out of the cockpit.
My build has 10 hit boxes per level
The Max-out build I showed has 8 hit boxes per level
And the build you just showed has 6 hit boxes per level
So it has a lot shorter lifespan in out of mech combat.
And using the Battletech Integration rules in Mechwarrior Companion your character is more likely to be knocked out of the fighting by pilot damage.
Is just as likely to fail to avoid shutdowns (Computer Skill).
So they are not even truly better in their mech.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 16 January 2021, 08:04:26
As Talen5000 is fond of pointing out, Mechwarrior is a RPG not a boardgame.
This is the Trap that most GM/Players fall into when making characters.
While nice, it is not necessary for all your combat skills to be maxed out.
And unlike a boardgame (AGoAC) Social and Mental skills are just as if not more important. 
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 16 January 2021, 09:17:07
That depends quite a lot on skill selection and play style.  I always took Computer skill, and preferred fast, hard to hit 'mechs.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 16 January 2021, 22:00:14
As Talen5000 is fond of pointing out, Mechwarrior is a RPG not a boardgame.
This is the Trap that most GM/Players fall into when making characters.
While nice, it is not necessary for all your combat skills to be maxed out.
And unlike a boardgame (AGoAC) Social and Mental skills are just as if not more important.

Social and Mental Skill also rely on Intuition. You aren't likely to hurt yourself very much in most capacities by buying it up to max, which is the essential problem; in order to make it hurt, you'd need to really crank things by getting it at 7 with an Exceptional Attribute advantage, and even then, your other characteristics are still actually a lot better than most characters that have middling Attributes but noble standing, an Assault 'Mech or the like.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 18 January 2021, 14:54:12
Social and Mental Skill also rely on Intuition. You aren't likely to hurt yourself very much in most capacities by buying it up to max, which is the essential problem; in order to make it hurt, you'd need to really crank things by getting it at 7 with an Exceptional Attribute advantage, and even then, your other characteristics are still actually a lot better than most characters that have middling Attributes but noble standing, an Assault 'Mech or the like.

Again I never said investing in INT was a bad idea, not sure how you got that from anything I said.
My point was on Investing max points in INT and REF, which seems to be a standard practices.
If you truly want to invest 6 in INT and another attribute I would go for LRN over REF.
While REF is great for a Mechwarrior right out of the gate, LRN not only provides higher Skill levels at character creation but higher skill rewards after every mission.
You get skill points equal to LRN (training) on top of the one gained during play.
Being that 10 Skill points are needed to raise any skill this would be a good investment.
That said, I have never been one to go for the powergaming route and prefer that my characters are stated for roleplaying not what gets me the best of the best stats.
If my character is a bumbling professor, I'm not going to give them maxed-out BLD just to get more HP.
If they are a muscle-bound thug, I'm not going to give them max-out LRN just for the skill points.

That said play it the way you want.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 18 January 2021, 15:08:17
You aren't likely to hurt yourself very much in most capacities by buying it up to max, which is the essential problem; in order to make it hurt, you'd need to really crank things by getting it at 7 with an Exceptional Attribute advantage, and even then, your other characteristics are still actually a lot better than most characters that have middling Attributes but noble standing, an Assault 'Mech or the like.

If you stats where stagnant after character creation then yes you would be better, but they are not.
One of the major flaws in this thinking is that Race/Battlemech/Advantages are also part of this equation.
And outside of roleplaying and a really nice GM, don't change during play.
You can increase you Attributes and skills by spending points, but you don't get a Title or an Assault mech just by spending some skill points/AP.
You don't gain Combat Sense or Toughness by spending some skill points/AP
The items that you are dismissing outright are hard or impossible to get outside of character creation.
You may have a 6 INT but I can spend points later to get there to, but you will never get my Combat Sense during play.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 20 January 2021, 16:49:06
Again I never said investing in INT was a bad idea, not sure how you got that from anything I said.

My point being that the character with maxed-out ITN and REF wasn't nearly as hurting in other areas as you presented. With a base Social of 8+, you're in pretty safe territory for being able to make a social secondary character.

Quote
My point was on Investing max points in INT and REF, which seems to be a standard practices.
If you truly want to invest 6 in INT and another attribute I would go for LRN over REF.
While REF is great for a Mechwarrior right out of the gate, LRN not only provides higher Skill levels at character creation but higher skill rewards after every mission.
You get skill points equal to LRN (training) on top of the one gained during play.
Being that 10 Skill points are needed to raise any skill this would be a good investment.
That said, I have never been one to go for the powergaming route and prefer that my characters are stated for roleplaying not what gets me the best of the best stats.

Don't try to dodge this by claiming "but I like rp more". It's a bad look.

Quote
If my character is a bumbling professor, I'm not going to give them maxed-out BLD just to get more HP.
If they are a muscle-bound thug, I'm not going to give them max-out LRN just for the skill points.

That said play it the way you want.

Maybe the professor is bumbling because he's huge and unwieldy, maybe a muscle-bound thug is really curious about the world. Character concepts can be multi-dimensional, as expressed in the stats; accordingly, a set of stats with high ITN can be perhaps too multifaceted.

As for other advantages that might be more difficult to gain after chargen, that's really up in the air, but high stats probably won't hurt. You're more likely to survive to success if you have better Piloting and Gunnery numbers for your 'Mech, though you might also want to get Extra Edge to turn a head shot into something hopefully less lethal. Advantages other than a title, land grand, or dropship might not be had in play, but what you can get in play, you can certainly capitalize on. More 'Mechs aren't necessarily out of the question, either; collect enough salvage, and you might see an assault someday even if you started with a light or medium, even during the succession wars.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 20 January 2021, 16:52:08
Intuition was always cheaper than the multitude of skills dependent on it in 2E... that was the fundamential problem.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 20 January 2021, 19:35:06
My point being that the character with maxed-out ITN and REF wasn't nearly as hurting in other areas as you presented. With a base Social of 8+, you're in pretty safe territory for being able to make a social secondary character.

Don't try to dodge this by claiming "but I like rp more". It's a bad look.

Maybe the professor is bumbling because he's huge and unwieldy, maybe a muscle-bound thug is really curious about the world. Character concepts can be multi-dimensional, as expressed in the stats; accordingly, a set of stats with high ITN can be perhaps too multifaceted.

As for other advantages that might be more difficult to gain after chargen, that's really up in the air, but high stats probably won't hurt. You're more likely to survive to success if you have better Piloting and Gunnery numbers for your 'Mech, though you might also want to get Extra Edge to turn a head shot into something hopefully less lethal. Advantages other than a title, land grand, or dropship might not be had in play, but what you can get in play, you can certainly capitalize on. More 'Mechs aren't necessarily out of the question, either; collect enough salvage, and you might see an assault someday even if you started with a light or medium, even during the succession wars.

Like you dodged the LRN comment? I was not dodging anything.
Any game can be power gamed was my point.
If you build to Powergame that's up to you.
You don't have to have the most optimized stats to have fun was my point

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Bedwyr on 20 January 2021, 19:46:32
***MOD NOTICE***

Drop the exchange of accusations please and reset your conversation to something more productive.

Thanks.
Moderator
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Col Toda on 23 January 2021, 10:24:48
Checked out Destiny RPG . Hated it even the adoption of using any universal rpg system seems better . Just going to a point buy system in ATOW eliminating the Vehicle trait as rides are assigned rather than owned makes the most sense.  Do not agree that Destiny was the correct direction to go .

I heard from store owners people are buying after market ATOW  core books for 200 dollars online used.  That told me a new a more  streamlined edition for ATOW made far more sense than doing Destiny which I already have buyers remorse over . Say point buy system say 6500 point split up by priorities  ablities , skills and  Traits plus upto 500 points in negative traits to get you XP to put anywhere.  Say 3000, 2000 , 1000. Priorities with 500 flexible plus upto another 500 flexible XP bought by negative negative traits.   Make affiliation and  MOS / profession templates and you are done .
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 23 January 2021, 11:07:36
$200??  The pdf is available for MUCH less than that...  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 23 January 2021, 14:08:32
$200??  The pdf is available for MUCH less than that...  ???

A lot of people (Myself Included) Don't like running a game out of a PDF.
One of the issues with AToW right now.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 23 January 2021, 14:10:01
I prefer hard copy too, but not $200 more...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 23 January 2021, 15:55:54
Plus being able to Ctrl+F to find a rule instead of having to thumb through is kind of nice.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 23 January 2021, 16:05:28
That's handy too, but less so at the table top...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 23 January 2021, 16:17:09
Depends on the space you have available.

My group tends to have enough that we can have three or four laptops plugged in at the same time making researching stuff pretty easy.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 23 January 2021, 16:20:25
You're lucky, then!   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 23 January 2021, 20:56:03
A lot of people (Myself Included) Don't like running a game out of a PDF.
One of the issues with AToW right now.

Greyscale, and go to a local print shop?  Assuming fifteen cents per page for greyscale, printing all of that 410 page book would be just under $62 (US).  You might want to make a list of just the pages you want printed, so you can save money.  Or print at home hopefully via double-sided, then buying a bunch of plastic document sleeves so the whole thing that can be put in a giant notebook.  From there find one of those super index programs that grabs every occurrence of every word in the PDF document (within a certain range), and turns that into an index.

I don't see a Print-on-Demand option for the Drivethrurpg page (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/64580/BattleTech-A-Time-of-War-the-BattleTech-RPG), so printing locally is the only option.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 24 January 2021, 13:21:27
Greyscale, and go to a local print shop?  Assuming fifteen cents per page for greyscale, printing all of that 410 page book would be just under $62 (US).  You might want to make a list of just the pages you want printed, so you can save money.  Or print at home hopefully via double-sided, then buying a bunch of plastic document sleeves so the whole thing that can be put in a giant notebook.  From there find one of those super index programs that grabs every occurrence of every word in the PDF document (within a certain range), and turns that into an index.

I don't see a Print-on-Demand option for the Drivethrurpg page (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/64580/BattleTech-A-Time-of-War-the-BattleTech-RPG), so printing locally is the only option.

I tried this before with my Pendragon 5.2 book.
The results where twice as thick and bulky as the print copy and harder to navigate, and that was only 239 pages (Including front and back cover).
Finally broke-down and bought the print copy.
If I am going to pay that much ($60+) for a book, I want it to at least be a well-bound paperback.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 24 January 2021, 13:23:13
With any luck, TPTB will give us a re-print, and you can get a well bound book for less than $60!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Col Toda on 26 January 2021, 05:59:14
Yes a print on demand option for that and ALL the spotlight and Dark Age books sounds like a winning Idea .
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 26 January 2021, 16:46:41
With any luck, TPTB will give us a re-print, and you can get a well bound book for less than $60!  :thumbsup:

The issues with this is, I (and most of the players I know) don't want a reprint of the current game as IMHO it is not a working game due to the many issues with the character creation system.
I don't think a reprint would even sell well if the game was left in it's current state. Which I am sure CGL is aware of.
And since it seems that CGL is going to push MW:D as it's new RPG, the odds of this happening are "slim to none and slim left town"
That said, it is highly unlikely that AToW will ever get republished, and if it does it will still be the mess it is right now.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Sartris on 26 January 2021, 17:28:37
The aftermarket prices on AToW are indeed ridiculous and have been for years

The only reason I have a DTF is because my local store had a couple copies that had been on the shelf for around six years when I moved back to town
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 26 January 2021, 18:48:41
As a core for rules that can scale up to TW and beyond, AToW is superior in my opinion, even though it could use some work.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 26 January 2021, 18:54:27
Plus using point buy or the pre-generated characters instead of module does sole like 90% of the issues of character creation.

There are a few other niggling issues but overall the system itself is fine.  But I agree the current state of character creation being focused on module does create a very significant barrier.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 26 January 2021, 19:00:01
It may be a barrier, but it's one worth overcoming.  The module system creates characters that are organic to the universe.  They make SENSE on a deep level based on the background.  Whoever came up with that system deserves a raise for that.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 26 January 2021, 19:17:25
It may be a barrier, but it's one worth overcoming.  The module system creates characters that are organic to the universe.  They make SENSE on a deep level based on the background.  Whoever came up with that system deserves a raise for that.

*nod*

I think we've been on the same page in that regard for a few years now.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 26 January 2021, 19:18:13
As a core for rules that can scale up to TW and beyond, AToW is superior in my opinion, even though it could use some work.

The thing is, the game could have the greatest RPG system ever designed (my personal opinion it's not), and it could have the best integration of any system (Matter of opinion).
The problem is, that even with all of this if the game turns off players right at the start (character creation) it is unlikely that players will ever get far enough into the game for any of this to matter.
I don't disagree that AToW has a good core system and maybe even the best of the MW RPGs(Matter of opinion), but when you try to run a group through character creation and it turns them off the game from the get go, the system has failed.

Plus using point buy or the pre-generated characters instead of module does sole like 90% of the issues of character creation.

There are a few other niggling issues but overall the system itself is fine.  But I agree the current state of character creation being focused on module does create a very significant barrier.

And there in lies the issue.
The game dedicates a large portion of the pg count to this module creation system that at its core is hard to follow and way more drawn out then it needs to be, thus driving away new players from an otherwise good RPG system.

As an example: Twilight 2013 (Twilight 2000 3rd edition) is a far superiors system to Twilight 2000 2.2, yet it failed not because of the game system but because of the intro story of how the global war started and ended. If a game can fail do to just a story then how is a game like AToW going to bring in fans with a flawed game mechanic as important as character creation.

Overall, AToW doesn't need a new page by page reprint, it needs a 4.5 overhale which I doubt CGL is willing to do.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 26 January 2021, 19:22:58
My sig block is a start on a 4.5 version, but has a LONG way to go...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 27 January 2021, 02:10:18
There are a few other niggling issues but overall the system itself is fine.  But I agree the current state of character creation being focused on module does create a very significant barrier.

The system itself is fine...but it is unintuitive.
The rulebook is not. There is too much critical information left out and to much dross left in. An RPG does not need to be a BattleTroops replacement nor does it need alternate rules for AGoAC. The character creation process is overly complex and the life path system ill suited towards a game of so many factions and backgrounds.
As I've said before, you could rip out a third of the book without touching the RPG rules and have pointed out that much of what is in the companion volume is stuff that should be in the core RPG book.

The rulebook is not worth reprinting because, quite bluntly, it is unfit for purpose and it is unfit for purpose because ATOW was not designed as an RPG system. Its trying to fit three or four different games into the book and it doesn't work.

I don't think Destiny is the answer either.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 27 January 2021, 11:10:02
I think Destiny is a better answer that overhauling ATOW. The system can be barebones, but you can layer on top of it some parts from ATOW if you want more granularity.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 27 January 2021, 18:57:03
Can you give me an example?  Because I'm just not seeing it...  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 27 January 2021, 19:07:56
I think Destiny is a better answer that overhauling ATOW. The system can be barebones, but you can layer on top of it some parts from ATOW if you want more granularity.

Destiny is horrible.
Its AToW with most of the best parts ripped out.
Most of the Rule sections of the book devote to much page space to the broken Mech-combat system even the character creation section. (How do you not have a out of range for Mechs?)
The personal combat Movement/Range system is a pale and (somehow worse) rip-off of the FFG system.
Character creation is a paint by numbers, one-from-column-A: one-from-column-B, Madlib.
The Cues themselves are a crutch for Bad GMs and players.
Its more a narrative campfire-tale then an RPG, with more in common with LARPS then Pen and paper.
It has more in common with Mechwarrior 1st Edition (the worst of then till now) showing a major slide backwards from all of the progress then had made till now.
All-all it's a terrible game.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 27 January 2021, 21:06:44
Can you give me an example?  Because I'm just not seeing it...  ???

I was thinking up a few changes to incorporate in Life Modules from ATOW:

- Ignore the Characteristics

- Use the Traits as a list of potential Traits to choose from in CharGen

- All the Skills with Positive points put them on the sheet as Level 0 Skills (can use with Hard skill checks, instead of Unskilled rules)

- Use Skills/Traits from ATOW

- Limit Positive/Negative Traits to 3 for Green, 4 for Regular, 5 for Veteran, 6 for Elite

- I would probably add a Trait and Skill from the Origins (i.e. Federated Suns) as well for additional flavor.

A few other things from ATOW I would like to incorporate:

- Include Extra Damage which would be a extra point of damage per 4 points of MOS (round down) like in ATOW

- Include Burst Fire which would be a extra point of damage per MOS (limit to ROF - use ATOW stats)

- Use the ATOW Armor (MBEX) rules

Finally here are some things I would do to incorporate Destiny with BT/AS:

- Use Destiny dice rules

- Use Gunnery/Piloting mods as negatives

- Instead of number of hexes moved, use the rules in Destiny to hit.

Also for Cues, I would limit them to six and use them as a +1 bonus to use per game if you can invoke them.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 January 2021, 04:09:13
Interesting list, but I don't see how that would be better than a tune up of AToW.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 28 January 2021, 07:24:23
I think Destiny is a better answer that overhauling ATOW. The system can be barebones, but you can layer on top of it some parts from ATOW if you want more granularity.

Not a fan of Destiny. I have no objection to a rules lite system - personally, I like rules lite, but with detailed characters but that is me - but if rules-lite was the aim, then a rejigged version of MW2 would, IMO, have been better

Alternatively - pick one of the Shadowrun rulesets. Myabe even tweak it into something more generic  that could be used with all CGL games.
And no - the Destiny engine isn't really viable IMO
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 28 January 2021, 10:51:53
To me I like the rules-lite, narrative focus, but able to add layers of granularity for more detail. I am not sure if the latter statement was an objective of Mechwarrior Destiny, but I am glad they left that door open. I was pleasantly surprised how seamlessly you can incorporate elements of ATOW into the system. I am also glad that the book was rewritten to talk about more traditional gameplay rather than focusing on the round-robin narrative style. I for one like the rule-lite approach because as a GM it makes setting up adventures/scenarios quick and easy. I like the more narrative rather than simulationist approach. I don't want a more complex version of Battletroops. When I read the fiction, I can imagine recreating those scenes in Destiny rather than ATOW.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 January 2021, 18:29:37
Well, you at least explained my visceral reaction to the fiction in the rule books better than I could...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 29 January 2021, 00:15:44
I was talking about the novels.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 31 January 2021, 18:34:15
The system itself is fine...but it is unintuitive.
The rulebook is not. There is too much critical information left out and to much dross left in. An RPG does not need to be a BattleTroops replacement nor does it need alternate rules for AGoAC. The character creation process is overly complex and the life path system ill suited towards a game of so many factions and backgrounds.
As I've said before, you could rip out a third of the book without touching the RPG rules and have pointed out that much of what is in the companion volume is stuff that should be in the core RPG book.

The rulebook is not worth reprinting because, quite bluntly, it is unfit for purpose and it is unfit for purpose because ATOW was not designed as an RPG system. Its trying to fit three or four different games into the book and it doesn't work.


I don't think Destiny is the answer either.

Out of all the issues that AToW has, IMHO the AGoAC alternate rules are the least of them.

The fact that AGoAC exist in no way means that a quicker vehicle combat system is not needed for the RPG

Just because you have Star Wars: X-Wing for the FFG line did not mean you don't need a fighter combat system in Edge of the Empire/Age of Rebellion/Force and Destiny.

Just because you have Warhammer 40k did not mean you don't need a vehicle combat system in Wrath & Glory (WH40K RPG).

The reason for a RPG vehicle combat system comes down to one of two options,
1. To integrate the PCs into the existing combat system that was not made to use individual PCs.
2. To create a RPG system driven mechanic that is a quicker resolution system for combat as to not bog down a RPG group with having to setup and play a lengthy separate game to resolve a combat that is a minor obstacle in the game.

Lets face it AGoAC is not a short game and Alpha Strike is to abstract for RPG player integration(To easy for PC to die).
The issues with AToWs attempts at this is it failed on both accounts. It is not faster and more streamlined, and it doesn't integrate into either system it attempts to replace them.

I will give Destiny one thing, it made a step in the right direction with the vehicle combat system, a failed attempt but at least it made the attempt.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 31 January 2021, 20:22:37
Out of all the issues that AToW has, IMHO the AGoAC alternate rules are the least of them.

In some ways? Yes. But they are still sn issue not least because a fully fleshed out RPG based Vehicular combat system is still missing. Meanwhile, pages of text are given over to rewriting AGoAC raher than "Use the boardgame"
 
Quote
The fact that AGoAC exist in no way means that a quicker vehicle combat system is not needed for the RPG

A skill translation system would take up 2 or 3 sentences on esch of about 7 skills.  More go the point, if it wad deemed necessary, thus is the sort of material that should be in the companion.

That it is in the core rulebook simply underscores that the BT RPG game is not being written or designed as an RPG

The RPG doesn't need a multipage converdion system for AGoAC...but it does need a vehicle combat system. That particular aspect gets 4 or 5 generic paragraphs.

Quote
Lets face it AGoAC is not a short game and Alpha Strike is to abstract for RPG player integration(To easy for PC to die).
The issues with AToWs attempts at this is it failed on both accounts. It is not faster and more streamlined, and it doesn't integrate into either system it attempts to replace them.[,/quote]

And being blunt...as an ***RPG*** integrating Mech combat into the game should NOT be a priority. By all means, a simplistic conversion system could be added....initiative is a tactics skill roll, your gunnery is equal to - 1 for every  3 skill levels, ECM is a computer roll, etc...but Mech scale is far beyond what an RPG should focus on. The RPG needs a decent vehicular combat system that includes a down and dirty system for Mech...e.g. all shots hit the CT but do 1/3 damage - called shots do full damage...but as an RPG, it doesn't need the effective rewrite of Mech combat. There is a game already in existence for that and if players really want to go all AGoAC they should simply be directed to use that game

Same thing for the Battletroops style rules...they aren't needed for a RPG.

There are huge sections of the game which don't work towards creating a RPG and should not be in a core rulebook. Easily a third to a half of the rulebook is wasted, and there is quite a lot of basic material which is in the Companion.


Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 31 January 2021, 20:54:02
*snip*
A skill translation system would take up 2 or 3 sentences on esch of about 7 skills.  More go the point, if it wad deemed necessary, thus is the sort of material that should be in the companion.
*snip*
I'll argue that point.  The skill translation to TW scale should absolutely be in the base RPG rule book, not a Companion.  As you said elsewhere, this is the BT RPG.  Not an RPG that happens to interface with BT.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 31 January 2021, 23:38:43
Sorry in advance for this long winding argument.
And just to be clear praise for one or two elements of a system doesn't in any way show a preferences for said system over another. It just indicates that I feel it handled the example issues better. Now on with the show.  :thumbsup:

I am on the fence about most of the MechWarrior incarnations and their connection to battletech. The problem with any Battletech RPG is that the Boardgame came first! Most other RPGs are based off a story, movie, RPG system, or come into being as an RPG. Where Battletech came from a boardgame as an afterthought to try to tap a larger fanbase. So you have Boardgame designers creating an RPG. That's where I feel AToW shines. It seems to be the first MW incarnation that was designed as an RPG first, but then they tried to shoehorn in AGoAC

While I tend to favor MechWarrior 2, it has its issues. It tends to be way to easy to powergame and seem to relish in this to the point of making it (without modification) a key point of the game.

Overall from a game mechanics and general coverage aspect I think AToW is the best of the systems, but even  it runs into the major problem of turning away most of its perspective players out of the gate with an overly convoluted character creation system and its dependency on the AGoAC combat system for its vehicle combat system
as I will be restating throughout this is a failure for any RPG.

Destiny on the other hand has a system that is so barebones that it make one wonder why it needs to exist in the first place. Reading through its rule reminds me of sitting around the toybox making up rules for that days G.I. Joe battle.
 
The issues with all of them is they try to be to much or to little to be a proper RPG.

I agree with some points from both Daryk and Talen5000, but disagree on other points.

"Does MW need its own Battletech combat game" yes.
That said I think MW 2 did this the best. It provided a quick conversion to (the at the time) the Battletech Board game.
Then provided a more in-depth version in the companion.
Where it failed is in just being an integration into the Battletech Board game. when that was already handled by as Talen5000 puts it a few pages in the corebook.
The problem being that AGoAC is too lengthy to adequate integrate into an RPG where battles can happen on a whim and should not be the only focus of the gaming session.

AToW doesn't create a new quicker and easier vehicle combat system, it created a vehicle combat sub-system and Large troop minigame that are tacked on to the AGoAC and to some extend the out-of-print Battletroops game. So use page space to recreate an already existing game/s with more rules that take longer to execute completely missing the point of an RPG vehicle combat system.

This is where I will give Destiny its only props. The new combat system is a good idea for an RPG but I have to agree with Talen5000 here as this is a focus for a companion book not the corebook. When you try to integrate the system directly into a new corebook like this you run into the issues that are present in the Destiny system.
1. It takes up page space that could be used to better explain/expand the Core system.
2. You are building it on a system that has yet to be fully flushed out and tested. So issues tend to render the game unplayable without GM fudging or mods(Range issues).

Now as to a reprint of AToW or just keeping Destiny, I think IMHO there is room for both of them in the market. (CGL may disagree)
First you have to look at who makes up the RPG market. Now this is from my experience working at and managing the (at the time) largest Game store in my city YMMV.

I have found that that while there is some crossover minaturegamers and RPGers tend to stick to their own.

Within the RPG crowd you have 4 groups. Now there is crossover and sometime customer can completely switch groups but it's rare.
1. The System Junky: This is the group that is enamored with one or two different RPG system/s. They tend to buy anything that is related to that system.

2. The Setting Lover: This group is similar to the System Junky, but dedicate their gaming to one setting in all its incarnations. Tends to be the largest continues customer group next to #3

3. The Collectors: This is the largest continues customer group of RPGers I came across. They have vast libraries of RPG books, and buy just to increase their collection. They also tend to be part of either group 1 or 2 in their actual game play.

4. The Indy/Casual Gamer: This group is the odd one out. It is at times the largest and the smallest group of them all. As a game retailer they where are best and worst customers. They tend to always be looking for the next big thing and when a new game comes out they become our best customers, but that tends to be the extent of their support for the game. Few if any of them are repeat customers for that game line so if we catered to them it would always be just what was new. They where also the ones that where always saying that most RPGs rules where to hard and needed to be simplified.  This IMHO is the problem with most RPG companies today, they are trying to caterer to this group of players for that quick buck, but ignoring that fact that after that first purchase they are highly unlike to continue to support the game.

That is where I feel AToW comes in. It has the support of players from both groups one and two, but just needs a revision. If CGL was willing to do this they could have the continuing sales of the Destiny core book and the ongoing sales for AToW and any supplements they put out. Just my two cents on that.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 01 February 2021, 00:34:53
The only thing I'll add is I would hesitate to direct players to AGoaC in the core book or save the vehicular combat for the companion.

I don't know about other gamers but for me that would be a huge turn off if I wasn't already so heavily invested in Battletech.

Now yes what AToW offers in the form of the Tactical Combat Addendum is probably a little overly complex for someone not already comfortable/familiar with AGoaC and that could use some revising.

I too feel inclined to revise Destiny's system for the answer.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 01 February 2021, 01:12:38
The only thing I'll add is I would hesitate to direct players to AGoaC in the core book or save the vehicular combat for the companion.

I don't know about other gamers but for me that would be a huge turn off if I wasn't already so heavily invested in Battletech.

Now yes what AToW offers in the form of the Tactical Combat Addendum is probably a little overly complex for someone not already comfortable/familiar with AGoaC and that could use some revising.

I too feel inclined to revise Destiny's system for the answer.

That is why I like to use Destiny dice mechanic and use the idea of the Abstract Aerospace Combat System and Abstract Combat System from Interstellar Operations which is a series of opposed rolls for positioning to determine range and then blast away. It keeps the narrative focus and you don't have to even use a map. And you could use either the Simplified Record Sheets or use the full ones if you want more granularity.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 01 February 2021, 04:23:02
At a minimum, the core RPG book should have the skill conversions necessary to use a character in TW scale play.  The Special Pilot Abilities could be reserved for the Companion, but they're pretty handy where they are.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 01 February 2021, 21:26:52
I'll argue that point.  The skill translation to TW scale should absolutely be in the base RPG rule book, not a Companion.  As you said elsewhere, this is the BT RPG.  Not an RPG that happens to interface with BT.

Yes - there should be a skill translation system in the main core rulebook, definitely.

BUT - it shouldn't take the route CGL/FASA and FP have traditionally chosen which is essentially, to rewrite the boardgame and place an entire new ruleset in the RPG book. It should be in the form of a sentence or two added to the appropriate skill.

e.g:
Tactics: On the main board game, Initiative is determined through use of an opposed Tactics skill Roll.
Piloting: On the main board game, a characters Piloting (or Gunnery) skill is equal to 7, subtracting 1 for every 3 (or whatever) skill levels passed by the character.

You get similar sentences to expand upon Comms...Sensors....Electronic Warfare..etc, but most actions would be a simple skill roll so if you wanted the character to tune his comms system into the local jazz station, it would be a comms roll using the RPG skill set. You only need a direct translation for half a dozen skills and that need only take one or two sentences per skill.

Other than that, the game shouldn't focus so much upon Mech combat....what it needs is an RPG scale vehicular combat system and it should resist attempts to include what ends up being little more than a new ruleset for AGoAC which is what seems to happen. It was half justified with MW3 as that tried to move to a D10 system but the core point is that an RPG game, by its nature, focusses on the character rather than a Mech and that is where the game focus needs to be.

AToW spends far too many pages putting in new rules that duplicate AGoAC or BattleTroops when it would be far better tearing those out, putting in a fleshed out vehicular combat system that takes up more than three paragraphs and telling players that if they really want to take part in Mech battles, to go purchase AgoAC or the Beginner Set instead.

If you really need to go down that route, then that new ruleset should be in a companion book of some sort and not the core rulebook.  It might be acceptable IF there was space, but there isn't. The core rulebook is missing so much  that I, at any rate, would expect to see...especially given that I wouldn't expect to see any supporting material at all, meaning the core RPG book NEEDS to be fully self contained.

And that includes universe information, gamemaster rules and tips, character creation, faction listing, equipment, combat (personal and vehicular) and recovery/repair rules, a bestiary, and planetary guide, NPCs and (ideally) a short intro adventure. And I could add more to that essential list.  Stuff like rules for landholdings, or dealing with what D&D used to refer to as Epic (post L:20) campaigns should be left for other books

Rules to replicate BattleTroops and AGoAC are far down the list of what a core BT RPG needs to include. If you get to the stage where every PC has a Mech and you are involved with Mech combat lance on lance....you need to be using AGoAC. Mechs, in an RPG, are better off being antagonists but given the typcial focus on characters of an RPG, the main and heaviest foe the players should fight on a regular basis would be a battlearmoured trooper.

I'm not suggesting Mechs should be ignored....far from it...but Mech scale combat is very far from the focus of a character driven game. Especially since the format of the BT RPG is very loose. There is no unifying theme or faction around which to build a role or adventure. In Cthulhu, you are an investigator...in Stargate, you are an SG team...in Shadowrun, you are Shadowrunner. In BT - you can be a cop or criminal, a MechWarrior or Infantryman, a technician or pilot, a scientist or reporter. In theory. You can be a Clanner or Spheroid, a Periphery dweller or pirate. You can be a slave or General of the Armies, a Duke of the realm or a peasant farmer.

That freedom is also a large part of why the lifepath character creation system does nor work. It takes up too much space because there are too many options.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 01 February 2021, 21:41:46
The only thing I'll add is I would hesitate to direct players to AGoaC in the core book or save the vehicular combat for the companion.

As a modern/SF game....vehicles are a part of the gameworld and they should be present. There is, however, IMO, no need for the focus on mech combat or the de facto duplication of AGoAC or the attempt to replicate BattleTroops into the core RPG book. If it ever gets to the state where those rules would be useful in an RPG session, you should be using AGoAC instead. Mechs should be the dragons of a BT RPG game - something most players don't fight. Otherwise, you are just turning the RPG into a board game with characters, and treating the RPG as a pilot maker.

If that is what you want...fine. But I think an RPG should be an RPG. Focussed on the characters and character scale combat. AGoAC exists for those who want Mechs.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 01 February 2021, 22:06:35
As a modern/SF game....vehicles are a part of the gameworld and they should be present. There is, however, IMO, no need for the focus on mech combat or the de facto duplication of AGoAC or the attempt to replicate BattleTroops into the core RPG book. If it ever gets to the state where those rules would be useful in an RPG session, you should be using AGoAC instead. Mechs should be the dragons of a BT RPG game - something most players don't fight. Otherwise, you are just turning the RPG into a board game with characters, and treating the RPG as a pilot maker.

If that is what you want...fine. But I think an ROPG shouidl be an RPG. Focussed on the characters and character scale combat. AGoAC exists for those who want Mechs.

I think you're missing that I'm largely agreeing with you.

I'm just not sure how to address the problem.

Like you say it should be an RPG and to me part of that is being self contained.  Thus directing players and potential purchasers to use something other than the RPG book for the central premise of the setting, big stompy robots being big and stompy, is going to be a turn off.  One that I think will detract enough of the potential audience from buying in the first place that will make it non-viable to create a proper RPG in the first place.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 February 2021, 23:07:16
As a modern/SF game....vehicles are a part of the gameworld and they should be present. There is, however, IMO, no need for the focus on mech combat or the de facto duplication of AGoAC or the attempt to replicate BattleTroops into the core RPG book. If it ever gets to the state where those rules would be useful in an RPG session, you should be using AGoAC instead. Mechs should be the dragons of a BT RPG game - something most players don't fight. Otherwise, you are just turning the RPG into a board game with characters, and treating the RPG as a pilot maker.

If that is what you want...fine. But I think an ROPG shouidl be an RPG. Focussed on the characters and character scale combat. AGoAC exists for those who want Mechs.

The problem with this is that it is (Name change aside) "MechWarrior".
Most players are going to want to player some form of combat character, and if you tell them "Just buy AGoAC" you will turn off a large amount of them.
No matter how you want to defend it AGoAC doesn't work as a RPG vehicle combat system, its to lengthy and requires to many add-ons to be worth it to an RPG group unless they are already into the tabletop game.
That is why the game needs it's "Own" vehicle combat system like Destiny.
That said, I do agree that this is not needed in the corebook as you can work with a simple conversion (a page or two) to AGoAG until they get it out.

Now back to the issues that need to be resolved in a AToW reprint/revision.

Character creation IMHO can be fixed by creating a hybrid of the point buy and life path systems.
Turning the Life paths into flavor packs that you can buy which provide the creation assistance new players need and the flavor vet players want.
Example:

BACK WOODS (Stage 1)
Module Cost: 120XP
Prerequisites: Any affiliation; STR 4+, BOD 5+
Attributes: STR +100 XP, BOD +100 XP, RFL +100 XP
Traits: Equipped (–100 XP), Illiterate (–100 XP), Wealth (–100 XP)
Skills: Language/Affiliation (–20 XP), Martial Arts (+20 XP), Melee Weapons (+20 XP), Navigation/Ground (+20 XP), Perception (+20 XP), Running (+20 XP), Survival/Any (+20 XP), Tracking/Wilds (+20 XP)

On the Master Skill Field table the Fields should be listed with their price after calculating the rebate.

The book also needs to have its layout redone to allow page to page (in order) character creation and not have players bouncing back an forth through the book to make a character.

Stories need to be cutdown to one or two to give a feeling for the setting and not one every chapter.

Skills need a rework
Brawling and martial arts are two different things.
Fighting with a sword is and untiredly different animal them fighting with a staff.
The tier system has to go. If you want to differentiate low level martial arts from a skilled practitioner then add a technique/maneuver system to the skill system.
Same goes for computers.

Overall none of this is going to majorly change the core mechanics of the game.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 02 February 2021, 01:20:34
The problem with this is that it is (Name change aside) "MechWarrior".
Most players are going to want to player some form of combat character, and if you tell them "Just buy AGoAC" you will turn off a large amount of them.

Yeah - however....
The focus on making the RPG a "Pilot Creator" rather than an actual RPG has seen the creation of flawed RPG systems that are, to a large degree, unfit for purpose. They work - but they also don't. There are a lot of posts about RPG sessions....which end up only showing the tabletop game with character pilots rather than a RPG. There's nothing wrong with that - it provides context and information and background that is important  - but it also means that it isn't an actual RPG. It is simply Mechs, AGoAC with more detailed characters.

Following on...none of the RPGs have been spectacularly successful, and - despite some good points in each edition -  all have been heavily flawed.
Following on again - if players want to play the board game, they should play the board game and let the RPG be the RPG.

All of which is stating that a rulebook billed as an RPG should be created as an RPG rather than an addendum to the tactical game. By all means, let the two crossover but an RPGs focus should be at the character scale, and not on the Mech or vehicle.

What might be an idea is to include a simple character generator in the base set which would allow players to create a MechWarrior character just for themselves. A simplified version of the MW2 system would work.

Quote
Character creation IMHO can be fixed by creating a hybrid of the point buy and life path systems.

No - the lifepath system doesn't work. It is too complex, consumes too many pages, too offputting. You cannot make it work given the BT universe as there are too many factions and options and backgrounds to account for - meaning either they are all generic bland or take up half the book. If CGL were to release faction books detailing specific factions for the lifepath system then it might work.

But as that won't happen, you need a chargen system that is quick, simple and provides enough flavours and skills for distinct characters.

Quote
Overall none of this is going to majorly change the core mechanics of the game.

My takeaway from this is that ATOW is a fine game...but needs a new skill resolution system, a new combat mechanic, a rewrite of the vehicle combat system, a new chargen system.

In other words - the current game has some good points, but overall it is unfit for purpose.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 02 February 2021, 04:27:15
I think the original sin that led TPTB to include such an extensive Tactical Combat Addendum was the decision to use a 5 second turn instead of sticking to the TW scale 10 second turn.  I suspect the Action Economy could have been tweaked to fit.

As I've said before I love the life path system precisely because it gives us so many options.  If you want "quick", point buy is totally an option.  I just don't think it makes characters that are as well rounded.

victor_shaw: I may be blind, but I'm not seeing what you mean by "hybrid"?  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 February 2021, 05:30:42
I think the original sin that led TPTB to include such an extensive Tactical Combat Addendum was the decision to use a 5 second turn instead of sticking to the TW scale 10 second turn.  I suspect the Action Economy could have been tweaked to fit.

As I've said before I love the life path system precisely because it gives us so many options.  If you want "quick", point buy is totally an option.  I just don't think it makes characters that are as well rounded.

victor_shaw: I may be blind, but I'm not seeing what you mean by "hybrid"?  ???

One I don't see the life path giving a lot of options, I see it as giving many far from complete bits of options that it is the responsibility of the players to piece together and try to make something that kind of resembles a backstory. It's to fragmented, gives to many partial skills and traits, and in general does little to help a player put together a  working character. After running through the system multiple times it still takes to much optimization just to meet the prerequisites and make the character viable.

As for what I mean by hybrid.
1. Player has set number of points as per the current rules.
2. Buys "Complete" Life packages for stages 1-5 as with the life path system but there are not partial points. As the word "Complete" would indicate, the pack would give Traits/Attributes in full 100 XP increments and Skills in 20 XP increments.
The idea being that, they would know the Expediters/Totals upfront.
The BACK WOODS (Stage 1) package example is what I am getting at. There are no partial levels within the pack and the player knows it cost 120 XP and all that XP will be used.
That's one of the major issues with the Life Paths as they are now. You spend the XP on the life path and most of it gets credited back during optimization.

3. Then all other points are spent as they see fit as with the point buy system.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 02 February 2021, 16:34:35
Thank you for explaining your hybrid idea.  I think it could work, but I think it also elminates a lot of the flexibility that's built in to the system (which appears to be your aim).  For me, the optimization process is literally how I work out backstories.  Far from a "strait jacket", I find it very liberating, and the result is a character that organically fits in the universe.  If the modules all added up exactly, I think that would very much be a strait jacket: "the legos only go together THIS way".  Optimization is how we're allowed to color outside the lines.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 02 February 2021, 17:39:32
I tend to agree that always flat amounts would be more constraining but I do take the point that the way XP is distributed could stand some adjustment.

Which I should note just flat +20 XP to a skill would still create lots of situations where you'd still have to optimize, maybe worse than it is now.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 February 2021, 22:14:41
I tend to agree that always flat amounts would be more constraining but I do take the point that the way XP is distributed could stand some adjustment.

Which I should note just flat +20 XP to a skill would still create lots of situations where you'd still have to optimize, maybe worse than it is now.

I have found that skill XP is the smallest issues in optimizing.
Plus 20 XP would always be over in tens, the same level that skills progress in 20/30/50/etc.
So you're over by 20 XP get a new skill as oppose to being over by 3 or 9 which equals nothing.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 03 February 2021, 01:10:49
Only up to rank four would you always be no more than 10 off one way or another.

Assuming Fast Learner and Slow Learner are re-worked, something I am in favor of, you'd still wind up with this kind of progression unless you're proposing further revision:

Rank-XP-Steps of 20 to get-Comment
0-20-1-As noted, this works
1-30-2-Given
2-50-3-Still good
3-80-4-Again fine
4-120-6-If you only put 5 you're short by 20 or over by 20, but not a huge deal I'll admit
5-170-9-As the system stands it is not actually that difficult to get a skill this high but we start seeing a growing margin  where you can be off by more than 10 one way or the other
6-230-12 a pattern is forming
7-300-15 can be shy by 40 very easily and not have the XP to bump up by this point
8-380-19 now an argument can be made that this is past the point where a skill should end up at character creation but the margins are clearly widening for possibilities
9-470-24-A jump of 5 opens up the margins wider for possible results
10-570-29-Maximum possible result

Now this all seems fairly reasonable on the surface and it largely is.  The issue it then creates is how one then needs to design the modules and how you can trap players into having to make specific choices to get what they want if one is not careful.

One of the things AToW does well as it is now imo is it does give you real choice where you're not hurting your character and the group by choosing what you want.

-fixed typo I just noticed-
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 February 2021, 04:25:02
It's not just Fast and Slow Learner that are throwing victor_shaw.  It's the rebates from the Skill Fields.  I don't mind having a few extra points lying around, and the way I see it, "partial" Skills/Traits are what give you the option to NOT take them.  Once you go over 20 (or 100), you have that Skill (or Trait).  While you can buy off Negative Traits, you can't just "delete" a skill.  As long as they're below the threshold, they're just the system making suggestions that you can take or leave.  I think that's the "secret sauce" of the Life Module system.  It provides an outline with variable levels "do this" or "think about doing that".
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 03 February 2021, 10:48:51
It's not just Fast and Slow Learner that are throwing victor_shaw.  It's the rebates from the Skill Fields.  I don't mind having a few extra points lying around, and the way I see it, "partial" Skills/Traits are what give you the option to NOT take them.  Once you go over 20 (or 100), you have that Skill (or Trait).  While you can buy off Negative Traits, you can't just "delete" a skill.  As long as they're below the threshold, they're just the system making suggestions that you can take or leave.  I think that's the "secret sauce" of the Life Module system.  It provides an outline with variable levels "do this" or "think about doing that".

Rebate doesn't actually change how much XP is invested in the skill though.  As such it would be easier to figure out and thus victor_shaw is not missing it.

But your point of being able to decide you don't want something stands.

In fairness though as the modules are now though it is already fairly difficult to have skills wind up in a state where you can decide you don't want them in the optimization process.

So what I'd fear more is actually winding up being stuck with more skills at higher levels than are desired because honestly there are a fair number of skills that seem to only exist to be XP sinks.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 February 2021, 18:58:39
I admit to having a MechWarrior end up with 7 levels of Small Arms... not exactly my intention to say the least!  But it DID help flesh out his back story.  Too bad I built him before I came up with Gun Kata...  8)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 04 February 2021, 04:36:18
I admit to having a MechWarrior end up with 7 levels of Small Arms... not exactly my intention to say the least!  But it DID help flesh out his back story.  Too bad I built him before I came up with Gun Kata...  8)

Gun Kata is for when the opponent survives long enough to get into melee range.  7 levels should mean that almost never occurs

A few more levels and he is the guy at the rifle range, with a booklet of targets where he fired 3 rounds and only hit the bulls-eye once - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aHtJZXqgU4
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 04 February 2021, 19:17:22
The way I implemented Gun Kata is useful beyond melee range...  ^-^
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 12 February 2021, 17:03:18
Ok, another idea on a new life path system.

BACK WOODS (Stage 1)
Module Total XP Allowance: 120XP
Prerequisites: Any affiliation; STR 4+, BOD 5+
Suggested Attributes: STR, BOD, RFL
Suggested Positive Traits: None
Suggested Negative Traits: Equipped, Illiterate, Wealth
Suggested Skills: Martial Arts, Melee Weapons, Navigation/Ground, Perception, Running, Survival/Any, Tracking/Wilds

This gives the flexibility and direction that Daryk wants without the wasted points or extra math.
It also removes the need for optimization after the fact as it is handled naturally as character creation progresses.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 12 February 2021, 17:48:56
Ok, another idea on a new life path system.

BACK WOODS (Stage 1)
Module Total XP Allowance: 120XP
Prerequisites: Any affiliation; STR 4+, BOD 5+
Suggested Attributes: STR, BOD, RFL
Suggested Positive Traits: None
Suggested Negative Traits: Equipped, Illiterate, Wealth
Suggested Skills: Martial Arts, Melee Weapons, Navigation/Ground, Perception, Running, Survival/Any, Tracking/Wilds

This gives the flexibility and direction that Daryk wants without the wasted points or extra math.
It also removes the need for optimization after the fact as it is handled naturally as character creation progresses.

Optimization can be handled by banning it. It forms character hooks, character background and can still be used to learn and progress skills.

But the Life path system is not suited for a game with perhaps 50 different starter factions, each with a large number of specialised background entries as well as the generic paths.

There is no way to really save it...it takes up far too much space and is too complex. You need to cut down on the number of factions and backgrounds available to get it into a usable and viable shape, but that goes against what a Lifepath system offers.

AToW only has about 400 pages. The companion 250.

Even if you allow for a rulebook the same size as Shadowruns... 490 for 5e...you still don't have enough room for everything. Even if you just kept the basics from both, you still need to add in extra rules and information to create a working system.

There simply is not enough room for a fully developed LifePath system. There would need to be a large number of Faction Books, each covering faction, each developing a faction lifepath, to be viable. And even then, the core rulebook would still need a large number simply to allow plsyers to start playing.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 12 February 2021, 19:39:35
What?  ???

The existing rules cover a large number of starting "factions" (if you include sub-affiliations, which is the only way you get to 50).  And yes, the Era Reports add more (which is wholly appropriate).  Heck, "Touring the Stars" products could add a "faction" if they wanted to add half a column of text.

I really do think the existing system works quite well.  How do you consider AToW's Life Path system not "fully developed"?  I think it balances flavor with player choice better than anything Shadowrun ever dreamed of.

Sorry to address you second, Victor_Shaw.  I don't think "suggested" alone gives any indication of "how suggested" something is.  The size of the partial levels granted give exactly that.  Math is not to be feared.  It is to be automated!
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 00:08:48
What?  ???

The existing rules cover a large number of starting "factions" (if you include sub-affiliations, which is the only way you get to 50).  And yes, the Era Reports add more (which is wholly appropriate).  Heck, "Touring the Stars" products could add a "faction" if they wanted to add half a column of text.

I really do think the existing system works quite well.  How do you consider AToW's Life Path system not "fully developed"?  I think it balances flavor with player choice better than anything Shadowrun ever dreamed of.

Sorry to address you second, Victor_Shaw.  I don't think "suggested" alone gives any indication of "how suggested" something is.  The size of the partial levels granted give exactly that.  Math is not to be feared.  It is to be automated!

It has never been about fear of math. It is about the abundance of overly annoying micro math that the current system makes a player go through to make a character.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 13 February 2021, 03:08:23
What?  ???

The existing rules cover a large number of starting "factions" (if you include sub-affiliations, which is the only way you get to 50).

In the 3050 era alone, we have seventeen clans, five great houses, the FedCom, three major periphery powers, Comstar, Word of Blake, Pirates and Dark Caste, and the generic Minor and Deep Periphery. Once you add in other eras, you have the RWR, the TA/TH, the Great Houses, the various other Periphery powers....in the Age of War, Star League and Dark Age era - each of these being different enough to warrant major changes form a 3050 baseline. We also have a plethora of minor factions such as the Brotherhood of Randis, the various mercenary groups, and so on -and that is before we even start to count the sub affiliations, Clan Mongoose and so on.

You might want to dispute the number by nitpicking over what exactly is a faction - but, however you want to cut it, BT has a LOT of groups and factions players can belong to, a lot of groups that need to be described and statted. And AToW doesn't really do justice to many of them

Quote
I really do think the existing system works quite well.

It doesn't. It is overly complex and poorly explained. It is offputting to new players, many of which are not willing to do the math involved.
It is simple math - they aren't willing to do it. And I can't blame them

A character creation system that drives players away is not, to my mind, working well.
I'm fully in agreement that it creates nicely detailed characters. I just say that a Lifepath system that takes up over fifty pages...and is still incomplete because it doesn't include all backgrounds (and cannot)...and which drives players away because they are not willing to deal with the math involved is NOT a system that should be embraced. It could create the best characters around, but if it drives players away, it is still a system that is not fit for purpose.

Players, IME, will run with a point based system. They understand the concept of paying for something. of having a pool to be divided.
Players, IME, will deal with quite complex math as part of the character creation process.
Players, IME, are quite willing to spend an hour or more creating their characters and developing their back stories.
And Players, IME, will not sit down and start adding up 5XP here, 3 XP there, take away 35XP there, add 200XP there, sum it up after an hour, discard the remainder and start again.

Some will, especially if they are aware of the BTU...but most won't.

So - no...the life path system does NOT work well.

Add in that it takes up more than FIFTY pages, nor counting Traits and Skill, and as far as I can see...there is no argument for keeping it at all.

BT has too many factions, too many eras, too many backgrounds and end archetypes for a Lifepath system to be viable. It is too math heavy. It is badly laid out and poorly explained in book but even fixing the issues with layout cannot change that as a character creation system, it is largely as failure. Not because it doesn't work...but because it deters players from playing the game.

The system is overly and unnecessarily complex.
It is offputting to new players.
It takes up far too many pages in a game where critical information and rules are already on the cutting room floor.
And it does nothing that a more compact and simpler character creation system does not do.

AToW has many flaws - and the character creation system is one of the biggest.
Whether it works well or not is actually irrelevant.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Kerfuffin(925) on 13 February 2021, 03:41:58
I don’t know much about AToW, but I had my pdf open on my tablet and even looking at Daryks AToW char builder spread sheet I was lost. I found an old automated excel builder and that took far too long to build a basic level clanner.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 13 February 2021, 03:45:07
I don’t know much about AToW, but I had my pdf open on my tablet and even looking at Daryks AToW char builder spread sheet I was lost. I found an old automated excel builder and that took far too long to build a basic level clanner.

You get better and quicker with practice, and some of the issues could be solved with reworking some examples, or clarifying how some rules are printed. It looks a lot more complicated than it is.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 04:05:44
I have to say, after trying the system again and having my roommate and one of my friends (both have been RPG players for years) try to make characters for the game multiple times for once I am in total agreement with Talen5000.

The issues is not that they did Lifepaths wrong and how do we fix it. The issues is character creation in AToW in its totality.
There are just way to many issues with one of the key parts of any RPG for the game to work with either Lifepaths or Point buy.
1. The idea that everything has a point value that is derived from the same pool.
2. The fact that Traits run the gambit from useful mechanical traits to completely narrative driven traits but still share the same point system.
3. The fact that there are to many skills that are used once in a bluemoon sharing points with actually useful skill.
4. The fact that there are to many skills that have way to much under them to be logical, Swords and staffs are not the same at all, and nether are brawling and martial art.
5. The fact that the system tries to correlated Attributes/Skill/and Traits into the same pool.
6. The issues with having to do ridicules amounts of math just to make a character.
7. The whole idea of the skill tier system.
8. Spending way to much space on reediting the AGoAC rules.

What is infuriating about the whole thing is outside the tier skills and some bad choices about what skills to expand and which to condense, the overall core game system is pretty good.

All this starts to make me wonder why they dropped the Priority System after MW2 that Shadowrun continues to use to this day.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 05:39:03
In my experience, a GM with a spreadsheet who is willing to work with the players ideas speeds up the whole process.  One of my players actually sat down and randomly rolled his modules, then while I did the math, he tried to justify the wierdness.

Kerfuffin(925): How can I help you?  Please shoot me a PM.  If I didn't explain my spreadsheet clearly enough, that's on me.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 13 February 2021, 05:57:58
In my experience, a GM with a spreadsheet who is willing to work with the players ideas speeds up the whole process.  One of my players actually sat down and randomly rolled his modules, then while I did the math, he tried to justify the wierdness.

The key word I see in that sentence is "spreadsheet"
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 05:59:22
It's no different than the pdf character sheets out there for D&D these days.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 13 February 2021, 06:57:44
It's no different than the pdf character sheets out there for D&D these days.

I can create a D&D character without a PDF character sheet and do so easily.
The same cannot really be said about AToW. The process is a lot more involved to the point that a spreadsheet is almost a necessity to get the creation achieved in a reasonable amount of time, especially if you want the GM to assist.

In short - I should not need a spreadsheet to run through the character creation process.

But even if you were correct, that doesn't alter the other flaws in the system
The Life Path system is too page heavy for what it brings, and it still deters players. Adding a spreadsheet and telling players that they need to use one isn't going to help; quite the reverse in some cases because it confirms that BT and AToW are math heavy games.

The Life Path system, for BT anyway, is a dead path that needs to be abandoned. It is a poor system that is illsuited to the number of factions and era and end archetypes, and being blunt - the character background that it creates can be achieved through other means. There is no way to make it work within the BTU without sacrificing other aspects - the blending of factions or the narrowing on starter archetypes. The Life Path system in Traveller, for example, takes just over 40 pages....but it  restricts the home factions and channels you into a distinct number of discrete archetypes, making the career choice one of the early options rather than a near end goal.  Your "life path" describes your career. The system works, but it is much less flexible, much more focussed. And even then, it takes up 40 pages. Other RPGs devote less space to character creation because they don't care about your previous life. That is for the player to create, and the GM to approve. The character creation process in Shadowrun 6e is described in just 14 pages - and that includes Traits/Qualities. If you want to include Skills and Archetypes, Shadowrun 6e takes just 36 pages.....in AToW, it is 104.

The Life Path system in BT is not one whose presence can be justified. It is a decent system in and of itself, but it is not worth the cost. Even if it were a perfect system with no other flaws - and it isn't -  there simply is not the page count available to justify its inclusion. The AToW is missing too much to justify the luxury of a life path system

There are many other flaws in the game that has contributed to its relative lack of impact, but the life path system is a big one.

I know you like it...but it doesn't work for BT.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 07:16:28
Your descriptions of Traveller and Shadowrun are spot on: the former is far more restrictive, and the latter doesn't even address character background.

I think the 40 some pages of Life Path stuff, plus the page or two of point buy are worth the page count.  The bulk of the 104 pages you cite appears to be taken up by Trait and Skill descriptions, which are necessary no matter what.  If you think those parts are too detalied or long, I won't argue, but I don't mind them either.  What I do mind is the 30+ pages of fiction sprinkled in without page numbers.  That's the first thing that needs to go if page count is that big of a problem.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 07:21:24
Also, on affiliations: I count 70 in about 10 pages in just AToW.  What was the issue there?  That they're not detailed enough?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 13 February 2021, 11:34:15
Your descriptions of Traveller and Shadowrun are spot on: the former is far more restrictive

Which is why LifePath system is far more viable.

Quote
and the latter doesn't even address character background.

Leaving aside the entire section labelled "History", or the infamous "Twenty Questions" of earlier editions, this simply shows that this is an aspect which an RPG need not address in the same level of detail as the Life Path system

Quote
I think the 40 some pages of Life Path stuff, plus the page or two of point buy are worth the page count.
[

Not when there are huge sections of rules and necessary material that should be in a core rulebook that are not. AToW takes over 100 pages to do what Shadowrun does in 35. Given the amount of material that should be in the core rulebook of an RPG but is missing from AToW, 100 pages on a  character generation system is a luxury the game cannot afford. Even if you just focussed on the Life Path system...that is over 80 pages to accomplish what Shadowrun does in 30

Page count matters.

Quote
The bulk of the 104 pages you cite appears to be taken up by Trait and Skill descriptions, which are necessary no matter what.

Yep...and I also provide figures without them...and the SRun page count is still less than half. SR6, including traits, requires just 20 pages. TEN without. AToW takes 44 just for attributes and background. With Traits? Traits adds another 30.

But yes - just counting attribute and background, we have 10 pages for Shadowrun, and 44 for AToW.

A Life path system is going to be much more unwieldy and take up much more space simply because of its nature. And it only makes sense if the end result is worth it, if it provides value. The 44 pages of the AToW lifepath system does NOTHING that the ten pages of the SR6 character creation system cannot do. It simply takes up much more space. Therefore - it is not worth it.

Quote
If you think those parts are too detalied or long, I won't argue, but I don't mind them either.  What I do mind is the 30+ pages of fiction sprinkled in without page numbers.  That's the first thing that needs to go if page count is that big of a problem.

Fiction isn't that important, but it does serve a purpose. It sets the universe for new players and as BT is a commercial enterprise, you cannot assume the players are familiar.  As an item to be removed to make page count more useful, it is quite high on the list - and yet below sections such as the Tactical integration or a new character creation system. Getting rid of the material that has no place in an RPG is the first thing thats needs to go. Fiction in RPG core books is not unusual or unknown, but also isn't universal.

So - in other words...removing the awful lifepath system which is overly complex, and deters players and does nothing other character certain systems does not do would be a higher priority. If page count is still needed once all the AGoAC and BattleTroops and integration rules and all that stuff is gone, sure...take the fiction.

But the first priority when creating an RPG is to create an RPG. Not a pilot creator.
And when "updating" an RPG - you get rid of the material that doesn't work or doesn't belong. And yes - the lifepath system doesn't work and more, it cannot work. Even Fifty pages for a character creation system could be justified if it added value of some sort - but the existing lifepath system does not. That it actively deters players from even trying the game is a major, major, MAJOR strike against it. And it cannot be fixed because the BT system isn't as restrictive as other games such as Traveller. You cannot have both...you can have either flexibility or the Life Path system, but not both. And the Life Path system is easily to replace because it does nothing. It simply provides a different framework upon which to build. There is nothing the Life Path system can do that the SR6 system cannot duplicate.

The fiction isn't critical...the fiction could be removed...but unlike other sections I could name, the fiction does serve a purpose. And, given the need to sell the universe to new players, quite an important one.  I think you'd have a better case for different fiction...something more relevant to the sections involved but when you include the lack of page numbers as an issue, I think you need a better case for removing it.

But yeah - page count is an issue. AToW lacks a proper bestiary or animal rules, the universe section is skimpy, the GM section is underwhelming and needs rewriting, the system doesn't have decent vehicle rules, there is no introductory adventure, there are about 80 pages in the companions which belong in the core rules...the list of what the core rule book needs is impressive. Even if the fiction were removed - it might serve a purpose, but it is still low priority to keep - there probably still wouldn't be enough room for everything that AToW needs.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 14:51:30
*snip*
But the first priority when creating an RPG is to create an RPG. Not a pilot creator.
*snip*
That's the argument that gave us 3rd Edition.  It also missed the point that AToW (or whatever it becomes) is the BATTLETECH RPG.  Not some generic system.  I agree it should be more than a pilot generator (which 2nd Edition did very well, despite its flaws).

*snip*
There is nothing the Life Path system can do that the SR6 system cannot duplicate.
*snip*
You said this twice, but earlier admitted SR6 does nothing for character background.  The Life Path DOES generate characters that are organic to the universe.  And it does it like nothing else I've ever encountered.  Hence my love for the system.

And I'd also like to thank you for keeping this discussion entirely civil.  :thumbsup:

When they were looking at replacing 3rd Edition, there were some, shall we say, more vigorous arguments that crossed the line more than once...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 13 February 2021, 15:46:34
That's the argument that gave us 3rd Edition.  It also missed the point that AToW (or whatever it becomes) is the BATTLETECH RPG.  Not some generic system.  I agree it should be more than a pilot generator (which 2nd Edition did very well, despite its flaws).

No....AToW is still a pilot creator and is still not an RPG. It is better in some ways than MW2 and worse in others. And yes, there was indeed a definite effort to ensure that it was more than a pilot creator.

It was an effort than failed, but it was an effort that was made. ALL of the BT RPGs are pilot creators and that is largely because they fall into the same trap. They are marketed as an RPG...but the game isn't designed or written as an RPG. It's written as a way to expand upon the character and experience system in the board game. You know..."improve your pilots piloting or gunnery by 1 for every 4 Mechs killed" becomes "earn 5XP for ever Mech destroyed"

That central, basic premise is one of the core foundations of the BT "RPG" games, it is one that is common all the way from MW1RPG through Destiny and it is perhaps the single biggest reason why all these various RPG systems have failed.

Quote
You said this twice, but earlier admitted SR6 does nothing for character background

In that it doesn't hold your hand? Yes. It asks questions and relies on the player to fill in the blanks in the background.

AToW does the exact same thing except instead of asking simple questions, it takes you through an overly and unnecessarily complex and restrictive lifepath system. The questions asked in SR6 can fit on a page and the answers are limited only by your imagination. The Life Path system requires 40 pages and requires you to follow a narrow path and hope that a Life Path that fits your vision is available.

Quote
The Life Path DOES generate characters that are organic to the universe.  And it does it like nothing else I've ever encountered.  Hence my love for the system.

So does a point based system. Except it takes up much less room for the same end result

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 16:05:49
I disagree that a pure point buy system generates characters organic to the universe.  Point buy characters generally end up min-maxed for combat as a first priority.  Everything else is secondary.  The Life Paths provide you those secondary skills as a primary result of the character creation process.  Min-maxing is secondary. I think that's an important distinction, and acknowledge that you (and others) think differently.

Thank you for recognizing the effort of TPTB to make AToW more than a pilot generator.  I've met (and play with occassionally) one of them.  They deserve recognition for their achievements (and criticism for their mistakes).

How and what to award XP for is always an issue in RPGs.  I think AToW moved the needle away from pure combat XP, though it could have done more.

I have to ask: have you seen my "First Principles" post (linked in my sig block).  That's where I'm coming from.  Herb mentioned something about "taking things down to the studs" and rebuilding from there.  I have three and a half more years on active duty, but will have more time to dedicate to that line of thought thereafter...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 13 February 2021, 16:28:31
See to me from my perspective when someone says that AToW is no better than MW2 or even worse for non-pilot creation I honestly have to wonder if we're reading the same books as to me AToW is miles and away better for such things.

Which brings up a fair point.  Some of the blame for the failings of any RPG has to go on the players and GM.  So when  TPTB decided to make everything come from the same pool and let the players and GMs worry about the balance, for lack of a better term, of things the lack of proper frameworks and the extra work it creates with players and GMs obviously has had a rather negative impact.

It's an approach I don't disagree with but will admit it needed to be done better and with the perception that Battletech is a conflict heavy setting it does bias against non-pilot and non-combat characters and the efforts that TPTB made to make those aspects better.

Which is a shame really because I tend to agree it still needs to be much better.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 13 February 2021, 17:02:32
I disagree that a pure point buy system generates characters organic to the universe.  Point buy characters generally end up min-maxed for combat as a first priority.  Everything else is secondary.  The Life Paths provide you those secondary skills as a primary result of the character creation process.  Min-maxing is secondary. I think that's an important distinction, and acknowledge that you (and others) think differently.

Any system can be abused. And if a GM wants to allow or disallow such characters, that is up to him. I encourage players to create diverse characters, to think about the background they want and to embrace a suitable skillset.

Other GMs I know like the pilot creator aspect that others embrace.

But players in my adventures tend not to overspecialise for long because I try to embrace a variety of styles. The combat orientated character tends to become less interested in combat when the main focus of the session is investigation and his Mech is stuck at the Dropport because the authorities refused permission to disembark.

It is one reason why I like very detailed character sheets.

As for min-maxing...IMO, that is largely what "optimization" is. That process should, IMO, be removed and is a flaw with the LifePath System. The XP allocated  may not be enough to give a skill level but they still form part of the characters life story.

Is there a possibility of formalising this lack of min maxing? Sure. You can embrace the faction system used by ATOW.

Pick a faction...get some base skills and traits.
Pick a subfaction...get some basic skills and traits
Pick a homeworld or background...get some base skills and traits
Pick an era...get some basic skills and traits

There is a balance that needs to be struck...I have nothing against the LifePath system...it just isn't well suited to the BT Universe because there are so many options and possibilities, and there isn't really a good way to reduce those.

A points based system is easier to abuse, to min max the player...but there are also ways around that, including GM assistance or "Starting skills must be no greater than +3" or whatever or by granting characters a diverse range of skills as part of their background.


Quote
I have to ask: have you seen my "First Principles" post (linked in my sig block).  That's where I'm coming from.  Herb mentioned something about "taking things down to the studs" and rebuilding from there.  I have three and a half more years on active duty, but will have more time to dedicate to that line of thought thereafter...

Can't say I have.

First principles? Hmmm

For me....first principles would start with "Create a RPG" and not a pilot creator.

RPGs....focus on the character. Not the tech, not the Mech. That means infantry scale. And not infantry as with platoon...but individual warriors. Your RPG group would be an infantry squad type unit.

Not a Mech lance either.

So...that's your core group. That could be an explorer team...a SG type unit of special forces and explorers, military troubleshooters, SAAB type space cavalry, CoC investigators, a Clan inquisition unit....

But the focus is on the individual human and that is the scale it should focus on.

BattleMechs, ProtoMechs and BattleArmour? Ignore the conversion rules. On the rare occasions when such units would be around, use the TRO stats. There should be no need for conversions.

Then build the RPG game AS an RPG. Don't worry about Mechs. Don't worry about tanks. Don't worry about ProtoMechs or BattleArmour. These would all be operating at a scale beyond that of a character focussed RPG.

Build an RPG first. Gear...cybernetics...poisons...weapons...armour...vehicle rules...critter rules...a bestiary...GM info...a universe primer...everything an RPG needs because you want the rule book to be self contained.

Cross over rules to allow RPG characters to be used on the board game as infantry or pilots can be added as an appendix IF there are pages left to fill...which is unlikely. Otherwise, the RPG should use its own RPG focussed vehicle system...with Mechs using the stats from the TRO. If a weapon doesn't do Mech scale damage, it doesn't get to damage Mechs, vehicles, protos or BattleArmour. You get rid of the need for pages of conversion rules by simply using the units as given and building around that rather than trying to force the issue.

As an example...the infantry portable VLAW doesn't get to damage Mech scale units. The infantry portable SRM, however, could be given a special perk...AntiMech (2) meaning when used against Mech scale units, it does 2 points of damage. Complicated page consuming conversion rules should not be needed.

That's a few of the First Principles the RPG should be working from.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 17:09:35
Did you have more to add?  There seem to be a large number of blank lines at the end of your post...  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 17:12:05
See to me from my perspective when someone says that AToW is no better than MW2 or even worse for non-pilot creation I honestly have to wonder if we're reading the same books as to me AToW is miles and away better for such things.

Which brings up a fair point.  Some of the blame for the failings of any RPG has to go on the players and GM.  So when  TPTB decided to make everything come from the same pool and let the players and GMs worry about the balance, for lack of a better term, of things the lack of proper frameworks and the extra work it creates with players and GMs obviously has had a rather negative impact.

It's an approach I don't disagree with but will admit it needed to be done better and with the perception that Battletech is a conflict heavy setting it does bias against non-pilot and non-combat characters and the efforts that TPTB made to make those aspects better.

Which is a shame really because I tend to agree it still needs to be much better.

This is the major issues of where the game loses me. Having played/GM/ and build worlds with GURPS I understand the idea of building from a core pool of points, but to work GURPS uses a massively detailed framework to accomplish this.
Each individual Skill/Advantage/Disadvantage/Attribute has its own point value and some things like Advantage and Disadvantage are broken-down even further into build/social/combat.
This type of game also requires a ridiculous amount of work/math on the Designers side to ensure that the game remain functional and they don't brake something with new releases. 
And that's not even bring up the amount of work it takes the GM to setup the game.

That said, we already have a "Generic Universal RolePlaying System" that works pretty well we don't need another.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 17:21:42
GURPS has never really caught my fancy.  Even I'd think it would, but for some reason it just doesn't.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 17:29:06
GURPS has never really caught my fancy.  Even I'd think it would, but for some reason it just doesn't.

It's an enquired taste, but seem to be close to what the AToW designers where going for.
Truth be told I think that GURPS would be the proper fix for the Battletech Universe.
It has the far reaching framework to included all possible playstyles, and the years of experience to do it well.
Thing is I for one am not down for designing it myself.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 17:30:36
GURPS uses a 3d6 system if I remember right... that might be the source of my discomfort...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 17:36:14
The fact is, to make a single XP pool game requires more effort then a split pool game.
And I don't think the designers are up for the work.
Not because they are lazy or unskilled, but because the Battletech Universe is about the boardgame and that is where they are going to focus their work and where they are most experienced.
I brought up GURPS because this would be a great way to have both, an out of system game that could handle both the RPG and Vehicle combat system aspects of the BTU and leave them free to work on the boardgame.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 17:41:09
GURPS uses a 3d6 system if I remember right... that might be the source of my discomfort...

Yes it uses a reversed 3d6 system where you have to roll under your skill.
Skills are not a level. They are a modifier to you attribute based on how hard the skill is.
So for example if you dexterity is 8 and you have a skill Dex+1 you need to roll a 9 or less on 3d6.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 17:54:49
Ah, that's two strikes right there... most people (me included) expect high rolls to be good, not bad.

Having met one of TPTB that worked on AToW, I think they are certainly up to the task, but you're right about their priorities not being what you'd prefer.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 18:11:28
Ah, that's two strikes right there... most people (me included) expect high rolls to be good, not bad.

Having met one of TPTB that worked on AToW, I think they are certainly up to the task, but you're right about their priorities not being what you'd prefer.

While I can understand the aversion to more then two dice due to the boardgame, it never struck me as all that practical.
IMHO, it has held back the RPG in all its incarnations and is one of the key issues with the game as it currently stands.
While games that have embraced large dice systems have flourished and endured, Battletech has languished and gone through multiple failed incarnations.
If the Battletech RPG wants to keep being a pilot sim then they just need to bit the bullet and make it just that.
If it wants to be a RPG it needs to just throw off the yoke of the Boardgame and be its own game.
Trying to stay connected to the boardgame is what keeps it a pilot simulator and keeps it from becoming an RPG.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 18:15:29
Staying connected to the boardgame is critical in my opinion.  BattleTech is a system that has the potential to scale from individuals to interstellar nation states.  No other game I know of has that same potential.  If the game isn't anchored to the boardgame, it's competing for space with GURPS, and as you noted, good luck with that...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 18:17:44
As to the roll low verse roll high.
That's a matter of taste and I can completely understand it.
It works for the GURPS system, but that's because it's designed to do so.
That's the problem with all the versions of the BTU RPG they are designed with compatibility to the boardgame as their first and most important aspect.
This automatically put the game in a hole from the beginning that the designers need to dig their way out of.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 18:23:03
I think AToW got further out of that hole than any other edition.

Plus, the AP vs. BAR mechanic really added something useful to the structure of the overall game.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 18:29:53
Staying connected to the boardgame is critical in my opinion.  BattleTech is a system that has the potential to scale from individuals to interstellar nation states.  No other game I know of has that same potential.  If the game isn't anchored to the boardgame, it's competing for space with GURPS, and as you noted, good luck with that...

I don't see it that way.
Fact is in my 30+ years of playing the RPGs, and a lot of those where playing MW in its many incarnations, I have found a lot of my players (myself include) where not all that fond of the Boardgame.
While I am sure that there are players that like roleplaying and like the boardgame, there are a lot that don't.
If you look into the RPGs out there, very few are as connected to a boardgame as Battletech.
And in the few that I can think of (HeavyGear for one) the boardgame is super simple so doesn't detract from the RPG elements.
Even within the old FASA licenses, Legionary (Renegade Legion) has its own quick and highly effective vehicle combat system that doesn't require the boardgames.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 18:32:13
I never got a look at Legionary... what made it "quick and highly effective"?  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 18:33:47
I think AToW got further out of that hole than any other edition.

Plus, the AP vs. BAR mechanic really added something useful to the structure of the overall game.

I'm in no way saying that it hasn't.
But when the hole is 100 meters deep and you managed to get 50 meters out instead of 25 then your still in the hole.
My point is why start in the hole in the first place.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 18:44:12
I never got a look at Legionary... what made it "quick and highly effective"?  ???

It's hard to explain, without some knowledge of the Centurion/Interceptor systems.
But I guess a short example would be it's kind of like the Destiny system for the vehicle sheets with a mix of the basic Alpha strike system for the actual combat.
While do it better then both.

And the kicker is it takes up only 5 pgs in a 200 pg book
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 February 2021, 18:50:40
And if you must or want to use the other boardgame systems there is a page and a half conversion included.
So FASA managed to cover both types of players in 6 1/2 pages.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2021, 19:34:42
Interesting... I can only imagine it's better than the system I can't name.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 14 February 2021, 01:53:40
Staying connected to the boardgame is critical in my opinion.  BattleTech is a system that has the potential to scale from individuals to interstellar nation states.  No other game I know of has that same potential.  If the game isn't anchored to the boardgame, it's competing for space with GURPS, and as you noted, good luck with that...

Staying connected is one thing.
Staying connected is easy.

The problem is that the RPGs are built around the boardgame and that, in turn, forces  major compromises that undermine it as an RPG.

That is why do much space and effort is expended upon trying to recrrate AGoAC or BattleTroops or the various Power play systems and land management or whatever.

None of which belong in an RPG.

You cannot ignore Mechs in an BT RPG...but they should be kept in the background. If you want an idea of what the typical BT RPG group should be role playing as, I would point out SG-1 and the Stargate franchise.

A small group of well trained troops, tasked  with missions of exploration, diplomacy, combat, covert ops and troubleshooting. An infantry team sent in so the Mechs don't have to.

That setting and style is also suited for Shadowrun style criminal campaigns, Judge Dredd style police campaigns, CoC style investigator campaigns and still keeps the door open for players who want to run s .erc company

Building an RPG around Mechs simply means the game gets built around Mech combat, and gaming sessions merely breaks between TableTop sessions.

RPGs should be focussed on the character...the individual.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 February 2021, 02:09:24
Thus the great catch 22 of Battletech.

It is about big stompy robots and people are going to want that for the RPG.  Battletech is too niche in a rather crowded market to even think about keeping mechs in the background for it's RPG.

But as pretty much everyone seems toagree it still needs to support the other stuff too because people want that as well.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Frabby on 14 February 2021, 02:22:56
Building an RPG around Mechs simply means the game gets built around Mech combat, and gaming sessions merely breaks between TableTop sessions.

RPGs should be focussed on the character...the individual.
It's weird how I mostly agree with you and Daryk both on the factual points of this argument.
But regarding quote above, I disagree. A BattleTech RPG absolutely needs to cover 'Mech combat in great depth, and integrating it into the existing boardgame is a low hanging apple. Your argument seems to be that this will draw the RPG into boardgame territory. I disagree. A RPG ruleset is a toolkit for the GM, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't inform or enforce a particular playing style; that's entirely up to the player group and GM.

I think your argument boils down to adventure design, not ruleset.
If your adventure heavily relies on combat, I fail to see how the ruleset used for combat makes much of a difference. Conversely, if the adventure doesn't then the problem is moot anyways.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 14 February 2021, 03:18:17
Thus the great catch 22 of Battletech.

It is about big stompy robots and people are going to want that for the RPG.  Battletech is too niche in a rather crowded market to even think about keeping mechs in the background for it's RPG.

But as pretty much everyone seems toagree it still needs to support the other stuff too because people want that as well.

I would argue that while Battletech is about "Big Stompy Robots", it has grownj and evolved so it is more than Big Stompy Robots.
More...anyone buying an RPG that is set in the BT Universe ahs a right to expect just that - an ***RPG*** set in the BT Universe. You don't get to play as the Big Stompy Robot in BattleTroops, Aerotech, ISIF or Succession Wars. You shouldn't have an expectation in the RPG. It should be an option if that is the type of campaign you want, but the RPG should be based around the individual just as BattleTroops is the infantry platoon, and BattleTech the "Big Stompy Robot"

An RPG can still have a section dedicated to integration with other parts of the game.

Initiative becomes a Tactics roll
Morale Rolls are leadership and Charisma
Gunnery and Piloting - say, you gain a base target of 8 minus 1 for every 3  RPG skill levels and note the info on your character sheet

Further integration could see technical repair rules and maintenance refer to the RPG skills in the appropriate rulebooks - Campaign Operations for example.

There are roles for Communications and Sensors and Computers - would avoiding a heat shut down, for example, be a Technician roll or a Computer Roll? Neither - it'd be a DEX or Reaction check - did you hit the override button in time. And that's if your Mech doesn't have a vocal override or an AI system that that can told the warriors individual preferences

But that's the point - an RPG doesn't need huge sections that essentially try to recreate AGoAC. It needs a few paragraphs telling how the various RPG skills can be used in a BattleTech game...and even then, quite a lot of what a pilot in such a scenario is use the roleplaying rules. Taunting an enemy is a Taunt skill or Intimidation skill roll and doesn't require special rules

Keeping mech in the foreground turns an RPG into a Mech campaign. As well as trying to create pilots, recreate AGoAC, BattelTroops, etc it is also trying to be Campaign Operations. Managing a mercenary company with finance, negotiating contracts, fighting Mechs - That is the Force Operations section of CO. CO even includes rules for generating Mecvh campaigns.

A BT RPG needs to be more than just Campaign Operations - or AGoAC, or BattleTroops - with different modifiers.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 14 February 2021, 03:36:36
A BattleTech RPG absolutely needs to cover 'Mech combat in great depth

Why?
Why should a BT RPG recreate/reprint the AGoAC ruleset? Why not just say - use the Boardgame?
A BT RPG sessions that spends three hours on the boardgame is not an RPG session - its AGoAC with character interaction.

You DO NOT NEED an RPG for that. Toss an abbreviated copy of the MW2 character creation system into the AGoAC rulebook and you're all set.

If players aren't going to use the RPG to actually RPG....then there is no point to having an RPG. Most of what is posted here about RPG campaigns can be achieved by using Campaign Operations. Negotiating contracts, creating mech scenarios, running and maintaining a Mech unit...that is what CO does.

As it is, I am not advocating "ignoring" BattleMechs - simply putting them in their proper place and , in so doing, allowing the RPG to be an actual RPG.

Quote
Your argument seems to be that this will draw the RPG into boardgame territory

Not will - does. Players and GMs like to post information about their campaigns, even for AToW and other BT RPGs. Now, either the groups that play it as an RPG don't like posting about it, or the RPG game inevitably

I'll go further...look at the scenario packs for MW.
EVERY single one of them has you as a Mechwarrior, and includes Mech battles as a standard and necessary part of the adventure.

The RPG game is built around the need for mechs so yes - it will draw the RPG into boardgame territory. By design. And, for an RPG, that is a wrong decision.

Quote
A RPG ruleset is a toolkit for the GM, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't inform or enforce a particular playing style; that's entirely up to the player group and GM.

I think your argument boils down to adventure design, not ruleset.
If your adventure heavily relies on combat, I fail to see how the ruleset used for combat makes much of a difference. Conversely, if the adventure doesn't then the problem is moot anyways.

AToW wastes about one half of its page count on material poorly suited for an RPG, including material that is better suited for BattleTroops, Campiagn Operations and AgoAC but which isn't actually necessary for an RPG. Meanwhile, critical useful and helpful information that would be suited for an RPG is shunted over to the Companion or left out entirely. The games mechanics are also compromised and clunky by the need to accommodate the focus on other BT games.

It makes a difference.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 February 2021, 04:23:39
The fact of the matter is this.
If they are ever going to get a working RPG for Battletech they need to stop trying to build it from AGoAC, and just make an RPG.
After the RPG is made they can create a simple conversion to AGoAC for the corebook, then if space permits add a quick RPG vehicle combat system to the Companion or even the corebook if it's small enough. IF you are going to create an RPG then create an RPG. While I don't agree with Talen5000 about not having Mechs, I do agree that Mech combat can not become the main focal point or reason for the RPGs existence. An RPG exist to allow players to experience the universe/setting through their PCs eyes, not to be a pilot simulator or new mech combat system.

This brings the question of do I think AToW can be salvaged.
To this I say yes. Most of the core game mechanics are sound and just need a little tweaking, but the Character creation systems (pleural) new a vast overhaul.
The Lifepath system is a wreck and the point buy system doesn't work for a single pool system.

IMHO the Lifepath system is a lost cause and should be dumped for now. It could possible be saved in the future with some major reworking and more focus. It either needs to be a Lifepath system or a point buy system because trying to be both doesn't work.

As for the Point buy system, they really need to brake it down into separate Attribute, Trait, and Skill pools. Personally I would return to the Priority system for this. 
They need to drop Traits like Rank/Title/Bloodname/etc. and leave them to the players and GMs where they belong.
Skills need to be cleaned up and with some skills divided up like Melee, Small Arms, and Martial Arts.



Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Frabby on 14 February 2021, 05:01:23
One of the best RPG sessions I ever had was a storytelling game with 1 GM, 2 players, and zero rules beyond "name five things your character is good at, and one he/she is exceptionally bad at". No dice involved.
You don't need a ruleset for RPGing, because there is no concept of balance or "winning" involved. That only comes in through the wargaming angle, on which BT unsurprisingly is particularly heavy.

I'm not even saying you are wrong though. I just think you're misjudging AToW by blowing a minor issue or even non-issue out of proportion.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 14 February 2021, 06:27:43
One of the best RPG sessions I ever had was a storytelling game with 1 GM, 2 players, and zero rules beyond "name five things your character is good at, and one he/she is exceptionally bad at". No dice involved.
You don't need a ruleset for RPGing, because there is no concept of balance or "winning" involved. That only comes in through the wargaming angle, on which BT unsurprisingly is particularly heavy.

I'm not even saying you are wrong though. I just think you're misjudging AToW by blowing a minor issue or even non-issue out of proportion.

And that isn't wrong. It's quite innovative as a matter of fact.
But...if you get into combat, then you need a ruleset to keep things predictable across numerous sessions, and to make use of universe equipment and gear and gauge their effect. It let's you judge how good your character is and what he can and cannot do, and to what degree. Your rules-lite system can work in some cases, but not all.

And yes - the rules do just serve as a framework. I can - and have - adapted BT for use in other, better developed rules systems.

And no - I don't think it is a minor issue. I have tried to hold demo games at local cons. Players aren't interested. Why? Because the game too often moves away from being an RPG game and "devolves" into a boardbased wargame and the players I was talking too were expecting that from me as well. They didn't want a wargame...they wanted to RPG.

One example was the player who told me he was a fan of Warhammer 40k and loved the game. Big fan. And he also liked Dark Heresy.  One was a wargame, one was a RPG. And he didn't want the two to mix and - in his experience - with BT RPGs, they did mix.  I tried pre generated characters and also took the route of having players go through the character creation process and to a man (and woman) they hated the character generation process.  It was too fiddly, too complex. Two of them actually wandered off. Yes - I was early as a GM those days and should have known better. I didn't.

The point here is that if you are going to market a game as an RPG, then you need to design it AS an RPG. As with Dark Heresy and W40K....that probably means separating the RPG and AGoAC. Mechs CANNOT be the focal point for an RPG system and the RPG cannot simply be an alternate Campaign Operations system, an alternate BattleTroops, an alternate AGoAC - the RPG needs to be its own game, with its own focus. Mechs shouldn't be ignored...but they should be put in their proper place within the game system.  Playing in Dungeons and Dragosn doesn't mean you play with a dragon in your pocket.

You don't get to pilot Mechs as part of Succession Wars or ISIF, Mechs are part of the background in BattleTroops. There are already games in the BT franchise where Mechs are not the center of attention.

And in a properly crafted RPG, that should be the case as well.

I have said it before...I can rip half of AToW out of the rulebook without touching the RPG side. Why? Because this is a rule book that is trying to be AgoAC, Campaign Operations, Succession Wars and BattleTroops all rolled into one as well as an RPG. The other RPG rules books are similar, differing mainly in the balance and weighting. And each of them is missing the RPG side as a result.

For AToW - I say the system (as with all BT RPGs) has some good and some bad.
The character creation system is good...but even with a rewrite, new layout, better examples and so on, the simple truth is that it doesn't offer anywhere near enough to justify the page count. I would suggest the Faction system - whereby your home faction, region, planet and era (or Clans, caste, sub caste and era) - gives your character certain skills and traits could be salvaged to try and have some level of differentiation but that in turn depends on how detailed you want it, how much page count you want to spend on it. Other than that, it should be dumped

The Skill and Combat system is workable - but is clumsily presented IMO. It looks more complicated than it is. But impressions count. Impressions matter. And BT already has a reputation as something that is overly complex and mathy...one reason why the LifePath system isn't suited either. A new system...even as basic as "A task has a different TN depending on its difficulty - roll the dice and if the result is higher, it succeeds"...might be worth thinking about.

Much of the background ad GM information needs to be expanded. A Basic adventure should be included. The combat system should be reworked to allow for a greater degree of granularity...probably via a scale or improved armour system. Better NPC and critter rules. A good idea (IMO) would be to create a focal point for the group...and ingame reason for the group to be together, a focal point around which adventures can be designed and which the current RPGs lack. Flexibility is good, but there is something to be said for having a framework and structure as well.

For all the good AToW has...the sad truth is that so much of it needs to be rewritten, expanded, improved or removed that you may as well simply write it off. Because simply in trying to improve it and add what is missing will require massive rewrites.

Other options would be to adapt some other system...I like the TORG system myself, but others use Savage Worlds or even the Palladium system....or rejig the Shadowrun rules as something a bit more generic.

Now, as it is, maybe I am making too much out of a minor issue. I don't think so. I think these minor issues are driving players away, deterring others from the game even if only through reputation.

I think the BTU is an interesting place and has a lot of potential for an RPG setting. There is room for spy campaigns, criminal and police, investigative and exploration, Indiana Jones style archaeology...there are conspiracies and brotherhoods and secret societies galore. And yes - straight combat and even monster hunting. These are campaigns that don't require Mechs...but they are also the type of campaign that seems to be very much a rarity within BT.

So - why is it with all that potential, that the RPGs don't really work and these types of campaigns very much overlooked? Why, with all the background on offer, is the typical BT RPG campaign seen as one which requires Mech battles?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 February 2021, 06:34:25
Yikes!  Talen5000 posted a long one while I was typing this...   My quick take on that is to ask what comes after "require"?  ???

*snip*
For all the good AToW has...the sad truth is that so much of it needs to be rewritten, expanded, improved that you may as well simply write it off. Because simply in trying to improve it and add what is missing will require
*snip*

On the older posts:

*snip*
A BT RPG needs to be more than just Campaign Operations - or AGoAC, or BattleTroops - with different modifiers.
That was one of my earlier gripes.  AToW flipped modifiers for no apparent reason.  Ideally (to me), the RPG roll should exactly be the boardgame roll, simply with the correct skill identified.  And yes, that should take maybe half a page when put it into a table or prose (as you suggest, Tactics for initiative, Gunnery for Gunnery, etc.). SPAs should probably be folded into the Traits section, since that's essentially what they are.

*snip*
As for the Point buy system, they really need to brake it down into separate Attribute, Trait, and Skill pools. Personally I would return to the Priority system for this. 
*snip*
While I agree the Life Path system could be presented better, I still think 40 pages is worth the investment.  I could even live with it being the optional system.  I'm not yet convinced Traits, Attributes and Skills need be broken out into different pools.  The priorty system still trades them off (MW2e specifically did it in a way that practically required Attributes to be Priority A), so the balance problem remains.  Someone here (other than me) said a single pool COULD work, and I'm all ears for the balancing tweaks between the categories that would satisfy your concerns.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 14 February 2021, 07:29:24
While I agree the Life Path system could be presented better, I still think 40 pages is worth the investment.

I could see a character creation system that is well written and effective as justifying 100 or 150 pages.
Conversely, if it is badly written or doesn't add value, then a system that takes up a paragraph might be a complete waste of space.

If you were to do a Life Path system in BT, however, then the only way it could really work would be to remove the core flexibility. You'd need to limit the number of factions for example.

The core problem with the Life Path system, is that it really doesn't do much that other systems also do. If I want a BackWoods life style then in the LifePath system I select that module, that module gives me certain skills and traits, it gives me a list of modules I can access next, and I then expand on the story of my character. With a Points based system, I simply state that my character was raised in the woods. And then I buy the skills and traits I deem appropriate. And then I expand on the story of my character and his life in the woods.

The difference is....the points system is easier to abuse, to minmax the character and the life path system takes up far more real estate, is more complex, is more time consuming. Abuse of a minmax system can be mitigated through appropriate rules and GM discretion but a lifepath system is also not immune to abuse.

Both have their pros and cons, but given the sheer number of starting factions, sub factions and eras, and end archetypes - journalist, police, soldier, mechwarrior, pilot, technician, scientist, diplomat, explorer, criminal, etc - a Life Path system in BT will, by necessity, take up a huge amount of space.

The question then is, assuming other flaws in the system can be addressed, whether that use of space is justified. I'm all for detailed characters so a character creation system that takes in scores of traits and dozens of skills and tens of attributes doesn't phase me. The question is more whether the system works, whether it has flaws, whether the result justifies the investment in page count.

It is easier to justify the page count allocated to a Point Buy system because it is, by nature, relatively compact. Page count dedicated to Skills and Traits would be replicated in either system.

Is there anything a Life Path system offers that a Point Buy cannot?
It is harder to abuse, to minmax a character.

Well then...what about rules such as "No Character can start with a skill higher than +3" or "Characters can only spend 40% of their skill points on combat focussed skills" or general rules such as "No Clan character other than a Warrior caste may start play with any weapon skills"?

GMs could also advice that the campaign may not be combat focussed and that characters should choose an appropriate variety

The Game could bring in skill packages - or expand upon the Faction system in AToW.

In short - there are ways around the possibility of abuse and diminish the minmax. Or maybe, there isn't any need. My first BT character was for MW2. Clan trueborn...-2 to a gunnery TN. He was a good gunner. The first campaign, he ended up getting new skills in climbing, Science/chemistry and Tech/HPG simply from running the adventure.

One aspect I really liked about MW2 was the "earn a skill point on a critical failure". In hindsight, it encouraged players to act outside their skill zone and expand their character because even failure had a reward. It is one reason why I am not overly concerned about starting being minmaxed...they fit right in if that is the type of campaign the GM is running, and many players start putting points into other skills if it isn't. Most players don't like being sidelined for most of an adventure so they tend to take steps so it doesn't happen. Not always, but usually.

So - on balance, I think the positive aspects of a Life Path system can be replicated. A Point Buy system, however, isn't quite as intimidating and is (usually) a lot faster, even for new players. Here is 200 points...divide them between 20 stats and don't go below 7 unless you want to be crippled. That's easy to explain, quick to do. Roll 3D6 ten times and allocate the results to one of eight stats. The pick an archetype. Simple, quick, compact.

I'm not one to understate the advantages of a Life Path system or pretend it doesn't have any.

But - given AToWs reliance on tiny XP sums, given the number of factions and eras, given the number of starter archetypes etc...I don't think a Life Path system is suited to the BTU.  I also don't think it can be fixed not only because one of the attractions is the degree of flexibility BT offers, but also because I do not think we can rely on CGL to provide the faction books that would really flesh out the life path system. They tried in the Field Manuals but the system changed half way through, the Combat Manuals got cancelled, and the Handbooks weren't a commercial success. A Faction Book system would be the best place to expand the Life Path system into true viability, but the sad fact is we cannot really count on such a book. That means the core rulebooks NEEDS to be self contained. And regardless of how many pages need to be allocated to traits and skills and SPAs, that is a strike against the Life Path system. The current setup where you get skills and traits awarded 5XP here, 10XP there followed by optimization is a major drawback...but it might be possible to rewrite the system.

But overall....no. I do not think the Life Path system suited for BT. Not unless it was rewritten to at least reduce the math, improve the layout and unnecessary complexities AND we got some series of Faction books which would be used to flesh out the system and expand it beyond the basic system that would, by necessity, be included in the core rule book.

I cannot really think of any advantage the Life Path system brings that a properly developed alternate system could not duplicate. 40 pages - even many more - would indeed be worth the investment if its flaws could be addressed. But I do not believe they can be. I think minor changes to layout and text could improve the current system. I think a rewrite to remove some of the more intimidating math would be helpful, although that would be a fairly major change. But even then, I think it would still be a broken system
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 February 2021, 08:13:49
While I agree the Life Path system could be presented better, I still think 40 pages is worth the investment.  I could even live with it being the optional system.  I'm not yet convinced Traits, Attributes and Skills need be broken out into different pools.  The priorty system still trades them off (MW2e specifically did it in a way that practically required Attributes to be Priority A), so the balance problem remains.  Someone here (other than me) said a single pool COULD work, and I'm all ears for the balancing tweaks between the categories that would satisfy your concerns.

I also believe a Single pool system can work, just not with the system as it currently stand.
To fix it to work with such a system would require a great deal of rewrites, and I'm not sure the Devs would be up for that considering the track records of the RPG license.
But here we go anyway.
1. You would need to get rid of all the RPG/Narrative Traits, they are a point sink and totally unneeded in a RPG. This is the province of the GMs story and the players involved and should not be dictated by the game or some form of point system as AToW has already shown it doesn't work.
2. Traits would need to be readjusted based on their usefulness verse each other and not skills and attributes as they have no real correlation and not generic 100 XP per level.
3. Skills would needed to be classed by difficulty with different progressions based on said difficulty.
4. Attributes like Traits would need to be reworked and pointed out based on their usefulness and not a generic 100 XP per level.
5. Overall point totals would need to be adjusted down to a more manageable level like 1000 or 500.

Don't see any of this happening but there you have it.

The fact is if I ever ran a Mechwarrior game again (which is not out of the question) I would probably use a GURPS conversion at this point since I doubt I well ever see a functioning BTU RPG.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 February 2021, 10:32:08
Whew!  That's a lot to digest.  Please forgive me if I only address a couple of points as I return from the ice-bound wilds (the car was basically encased in a layer of ice... it was freezing rain ALL DAY yesterday).

I would also like to preface this post by saying the two of you are hard to keep up with!  You've both given this a LOT of thought, and I would be remiss to give it any less.  THANK YOU!   :thumbsup:

Talen5000: The advantage of the modules over what any individual "would deem" to be part of their "backwoods" upbringing is that they provide a list of Attributes/Traits/Skills with varying levels of "suggested".  Few people put as much thought into a character's background as you (or even I).  Some expenditures are high enough to make an Attribute/Trait/Skill "required", while others are truly optional.  I think the implementation of that was elegant.  Did it cause other problems?  Sure.  But I truly appreciate the "small packages" of XP, and see them as the emphasized suggestions they are.  It was one of my guiding principles when converting Victor_Shaw's excellent academy work to AToW (also linked in my sig block).  I think a simple re-formatting of module presentation would go a long way to mitigating this concern.

Victor_Shaw: While your post is shorter, it's no less meaty!  Thank you for the specific issues laid out in a very concise format.  I'll try to address each one, if only briefly at the moment.

1) I'm less sure this is a good idea.  With those Traits in the system, it gives the GM and players a common language with which to negotiate the details.  And with RPG/Narrative Traits, that's especially important.  Would you rather have that conversation during character creation, or in play?  Putting them in the system bounds them in a way both can understand outside of the heat of the moment, as opposed to arguing it out during play.

2) While I agree "a generic 100 XP per level" is probably inappropriate, this could easily be addressed by simply costing the Traits appropriately.  This is a longer conversation, and necessarily engages the "one eaches".

3) Skills ARE broken down by difficulty/complexity.  The Simple/Complex//Basic/Advanced//Tiered system is exactly this.  If you think individual skills should be adjusted up or down, this is the way to attack that problem.  Granted, at the moment, this only results in +/- 1 per individual change, but I think TPTB put a lot of thought into this, and I respect it.

4) I think this is basicall a repeat of 2.  If you think individual Traits should be adjusted against the 100XP per point Attributes get, that could totally work.  If you think individual Attributes should be different from one another, that's another argument entirely.

5) The point total is simply a math artefact of the granularity desired of the system.  Fuzz out the granularity, and the point total drops.  Obviously, I like the granularity we have.

As originally stated, you're right that I don't think it will happen.  But that's only because the overall issues you list can be attacked WITHIN the existing system!  There is hope!  Hence, my sig block...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 14 February 2021, 12:03:08
Talen5000: The advantage of the modules over what any individual "would deem" to be part of their "backwoods" upbringing is that they provide a list of Attributes/Traits/Skills with varying levels of "suggested".

Which adds nothing to the character - it makes the creation process a bit more restrictive, but adds a bit more handholding. These are the skills you allowed to choose for your "BackWoods" background as opposed to "You are encouraged to select skills suited for your characters backstory"

To my point of view, that isn't major consideration because they are simply two paths to the same goal. One is simply restrictive, but mandatory. There is no "Best" option here....simply preference, and how the systems are implemented.

Don't get me wrong - I like the Life Path system. But....I still don't think to works for BT. There are too many options in BT to make a lifepath system truly viable - again, unless we can count on factions books of some kind in order to expand the system (and we can't). More, the entire system we have now needs to be rewritten to account for the deterrence factor. Most players, in my experience, don't like the amount of math involved in creating a BT character. It isn't the difficulty...it is the amount. One calculus equation would be preferable to a score of minor additions....especially because a calculus equation would feel "meaningful" and important and the myriad additions and subtractions of the AToW lifepath system feels anything but.

The question then is, taking everything into account, does it provide value for the page count it has....and my answer is still, no. It doesn't. It isn't fit for purpose as it is written because it doesn't really add anything to character creation that other systems cannot provide,  but because of its writing, flexibility, mechanics and reputation it is time consuming and, worst of all, is an active deterrence in getting players to play.

Can the system be fixed? Can it be adjusted to be worthwhile? And the answer is....IMO, no. There are no faction books planned which would be needed to expand the system and if the character creation system has to fit into one book, then it needs to be fairly complete. As it needs to be rewritten anyway, then the best solution would be to adopt another more straightforward character creation system and adjust the character creation process to encourage, in some way, the player to adopt skills and traits that would be typical of his culture and nation.

One aspect of the AToW that does strike me as worth exploring further is the Faction system they have - where membership of a faction bestows skills, languages, traits that are common. I think this system could be adapted.

For example - the Smoke Jaguars. Yeah - my main faction. Sue me for using them ;)

They are a Clan faction.
So....they speak Clan English. They get a trait - Clan honor, honest.
They are literate...reading is universal.

They are the Jaguar sub faction.
They get computers as a skill.
They get protocol Smoke Jaguar as a sub skill of Protocol Clan.
Warriors get Batalan: Smoke Jaguar for their battle language.

Traits? The Clan is ritualistic. Fatalistic. Superstitious. And not in the Nova Cat sense - the Jaguars believe in ghosts and use rituals to ward away bad luck. Kinda.
The Clan is unlucky - very unlucky. Its mentioned that they have suffered several falls.
The Warriors and Merchants of the Clan don't trust each other. Something bout multiple rebellions and multiple suppressions.
The Jaguars could be very harsh - but its lower castes appeared loyal
The Clan is known for its science, engineers and its technical ability...Victor referred to their technicians as the best in the galaxy.
The Clan is said to hate slavery and slavers with a passion.
The warriors are anti freebirth but have also been known to mingle freely.
Their cities are sterile but their art, as exemplified by the leaping jaguar above Lootera, could be sublime.
They were aggressive, but also said to be thoughtful.
They loved simplicity but could also create plans of stunning complexity.
They were touchy about rebellions
They didn't like the Wolverines or anyone who helped them - but then, no true Clanner did
They are said to be conservative but they deviated from Clan norms in many areas - the use of a Reagan SDS system and actual cybernetic upgrades, having a dedicated hospital ship, the use of artillery and deviating from the standard formations amongst them

I could go on. The trouble is, each such faction would require half a page? a full page? Two? How many traits and quirks to describe a factions Culture and values would be "right" or would there be a risk in going overboard. Well...more than a risk. You could go for the stereotypes but some of the more subtle beliefs common within a faction might be important...but important enough to warrant a "quirk". And what about the stereotypes that are often wrong.

Point being that a "Faction Page" detailing baseline quirks and skills may or may not be worth keeping. And it would probably be a page each, once sub factions and homeworld or baseline background is added. If you gave each a page, that'd be 30 pages describing the factions and providing a basic set of skills and traits to represent the faction.

Value?

Of course, it isn't the only solution to the min-max issue.

Ultimately - the point still stands. The LifePath system as it is written is not a good fit for the BT RPG and there is no way to fix it given the likely lack of the extra books and factional material necessary. It needs to be rewritten and rebuilt from the ground up so as to remove the deterrence factor that is such a huge negative. Page count is also an issue - the hefty page count of a Life Path system would be justified if it brought "value" to the game. I think the Faction section  does do that, in that it presents a basic overview of each faction and their beliefs, values and associated tropes but I don't believe the Life path system...as it exists now....does.  Page count must also be balanced against other uses.

Quote
Few people put as much thought into a character's background as you (or even I).

And that is (partially) the point - most players don't care. It can be fun rolling up a Life Path..butt here is also fun in rolling up a quick character and simply getting to work, leaving the backstory for later. And when players see 5XP here, 10XP there and 200XP elsewhere - what they see is "Math? Yughhh!" And there is no way to repair the LifePath system other than with a total rebuild because that system also touches on character advancement and rewards.


There is nothing majorly wrong with a properly done Life Path system...just as there is nothing majorly wrong with a properly done Point Buy system. But, in AToW, the Life Path system is not properly done and there is no simple way to fix the issues.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 February 2021, 12:32:52
I also believe a Single pool system can work, just not with the system as it currently stand.
To fix it to work with such a system would require a great deal of rewrites, and I'm not sure the Devs would be up for that considering the track records of the RPG license.
But here we go anyway.
1. You would need to get rid of all the RPG/Narrative Traits, they are a point sink and totally unneeded in a RPG. This is the province of the GMs story and the players involved and should not be dictated by the game or some form of point system as AToW has already shown it doesn't work.
2. Traits would need to be readjusted based on their usefulness verse each other and not skills and attributes as they have no real correlation and not generic 100 XP per level.
3. Skills would needed to be classed by difficulty with different progressions based on said difficulty.
4. Attributes like Traits would need to be reworked and pointed out based on their usefulness and not a generic 100 XP per level.
5. Overall point totals would need to be adjusted down to a more manageable level like 1000 or 500.

Don't see any of this happening but there you have it.

The fact is if I ever ran a Mechwarrior game again (which is not out of the question) I would probably use a GURPS conversion at this point since I doubt I well ever see a functioning BTU RPG.

1. To me there are two options here, do as you suggest and ditch them.  Going that route though means you add complications for players/GMs going from one group to another and disconnect from a lot of Battletechs key features even further.  Or re-work them so they have better mechanical frameworks to work from.  I'm slightly more in favor of this as it maintains a level of universal consistency and helps reinforce some of Battletech's key features.

2. Hmmm...  I take the point that maybe they should have a different XP-Rank cost structure and I do have some house rules that re-adjust existing traits so to an extent I can't disagree with this idea but to say that traits in AToW don't have correlations to skills and attributes seems a bit odd with how many directly impact how attributes and skills work.

3. Unlike Daryk I take it you mean a Simple/Basic skill should cost a different amount of XP to raise to a particular rank than say a Complex/Advanced skill.  I only oppose it on the grounds of that would add additional complexity.

4. This is an ill advised path to take.  No system I know of costs attributes differently from one another.

5. In principle I do not disagree with this idea.  The problem is one of progression.  1 XP suddenly becomes much more meaningful if your starting pool is only 500 XP.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 February 2021, 13:24:59
Talen5000: It sounds like you'd prefer a system that gives Affilitations only in the main book, and sub-Affiliations in the faction books.  That's not a bad model, but as you noted, sales are not guaranteed.  I suspect we're getting closer to consensus here...

Note: I define consensus as "I can live with that", not "I agree with that".

Monbvol: I think we're actually in agreement on point 3.  My point is that Skills DO cost a different amount to move along the 2d6 scale based on their Simple/Complex//Basic/Advanced//Tiered status, not that they should ALSO cost a different amount to raise.  I could be convinced on this point, but it certainly raises the complexity, which more than one poster here seems to object to...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 14 February 2021, 14:47:53
Talen5000: It sounds like you'd prefer a system that gives Affilitations only in the main book, and sub-Affiliations in the faction books.  That's not a bad model, but as you noted, sales are not guaranteed.  I suspect we're getting closer to consensus here...

Not necessarily....but we have to be mindful of commercial realities.

BT RPGs have never been spectacularly successful....which I blame (partly) on a poorly realised ruleset and a lack of support. There is a bit of a feedback loop here but the end result is that ONLY the core rulebook is "guaranteed" to be produced.

Because of this, we cannot rely on other books to flesh out or expand on rules and equipment.

Following on, the core rule book needs to be as complete as possible

That's a tall order as there is quite a bit of material that a core rulebook needs to cover, and a BT rulebook will be worse than most in some aspects

As it is...I do not consider the current LifePath system fit for purpose. It needs to go. The question that needs to be answered is what needs to replace it.

It is important that any character creation system thus be as compact as possible, but also deliver value for the pages allocated to it. I believe SOME of the issues with the current Life Path system could be resolved with a MAJOR rewrite...but I do not believe a Life Path system can offer enough "value" within the likely page allocation unless other books can be guaranteed.

As they cannot, it is better to drop the Life Path system and embrace a different character creation system that is more open and flexible in developing a characters background, bypassing the problem entirely. I like the idea of salvaging the Faction system to provide a degree of differentiation but again, a lot would depend on page count. 5 Great Houses, 17 Clans, the FRR, three major periphery powers, ComStar/WoB and a handful of generic mercs/pirates/corporations/etc can eat up a fair amount of space.


Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 February 2021, 14:50:12
Talen5000: It sounds like you'd prefer a system that gives Affilitations only in the main book, and sub-Affiliations in the faction books.  That's not a bad model, but as you noted, sales are not guaranteed.  I suspect we're getting closer to consensus here...

Note: I define consensus as "I can live with that", not "I agree with that".

Monbvol: I think we're actually in agreement on point 3.  My point is that Skills DO cost a different amount to move along the 2d6 scale based on their Simple/Complex//Basic/Advanced//Tiered status, not that they should ALSO cost a different amount to raise.  I could be convinced on this point, but it certainly raises the complexity, which more than one poster here seems to object to...

*nod*

It does seem odd that one of the chief complaints about character creation is complexity and yet most of the ideas being offered would actually make the process even more complex.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 February 2021, 18:48:13
Thanks Monbvol!  :thumbsup:

Talen5000: Well, they cram the existing 70 Affiliations and Sub-Affiliations into 12 pages right now (pp. 53-64, and about two of them are art).  I'm not sure how you'd improve on that, even with a complete overhaul.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: abou on 14 February 2021, 19:53:49
That was one of my earlier gripes.  AToW flipped modifiers for no apparent reason.  Ideally (to me), the RPG roll should exactly be the boardgame roll, simply with the correct skill identified.  And yes, that should take maybe half a page when put it into a table or prose (as you suggest, Tactics for initiative, Gunnery for Gunnery, etc.).
Oh, dear god, yes! Please!
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Maelwys on 14 February 2021, 20:53:05
Wasn't there something about ATOW not being able to use the same system of modifiers as the board game because you'd run out of room basically with the more granular RPG?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 February 2021, 21:54:30
1. To me there are two options here, do as you suggest and ditch them.  Going that route though means you add complications for players/GMs going from one group to another and disconnect from a lot of Battletechs key features even further.  Or re-work them so they have better mechanical frameworks to work from.  I'm slightly more in favor of this as it maintains a level of universal consistency and helps reinforce some of Battletech's key features.

2. Hmmm...  I take the point that maybe they should have a different XP-Rank cost structure and I do have some house rules that re-adjust existing traits so to an extent I can't disagree with this idea but to say that traits in AToW don't have correlations to skills and attributes seems a bit odd with how many directly impact how attributes and skills work.

3. Unlike Daryk I take it you mean a Simple/Basic skill should cost a different amount of XP to raise to a particular rank than say a Complex/Advanced skill.  I only oppose it on the grounds of that would add additional complexity.

4. This is an ill advised path to take.  No system I know of costs attributes differently from one another.

5. In principle I do not disagree with this idea.  The problem is one of progression.  1 XP suddenly becomes much more meaningful if your starting pool is only 500 XP.

First not ignoring your post Daryk it was just easier to quote monbov.  :thumbsup:
Anyway, I first have to point out that this post is only addressing single pool systems which is rare in RPGs as most separate their pools or don't use them at all.
The only working truly single point system I know of is GURPS so that were a lot of these Ideas are based on.

1. My biggest problem with narrative Traits is that they don't correlate well or at all with more mechanically driven traits. For example Rank/Title/Bloodname costs are just ridiculous and are in know way equal to other Traits that provide a more meaningful advantage in play. To put it this way a BloodRight is something you are born with, and the Bloodname attached to it should be earned in play through the Bloodname trial so why does it have a point total? This is also where I start to see these Traits as a substitute for good Role playing.

2. When I say they don't correlate what I am getting at is they are three different type of stats that in and of themselves do different things. this is where the problem with high point totals start to rear their head. Why does a skill have to cost 20 XP for level 1 and an Attribute have a cost of 100 XP? Its it because Attributes are 5x better then Skill, no it because this is the arbitrary number they set to differentiate the to types of stats in a single pool system.

3. Yes and no, I feel that harder skills should cost more and not need a special mechanic of their own. As to Daryk, I find their approach to be one of the problems with the game. The Tier system IMHO is nonsensical in design and execution. Having a Network Admin/Computer Science degree I can say that the way the Computer skill and other Tier skill are presented makes no sense. Along with Small Arms, Marital Arts, etc. this is one of the skills I would breakdown. Programming (which I suck at) is not the same as Network operations or Network construction, and getting better at using a computer in no way makes you good at any of the above without directed study in the chosen topic. The Tier system likes to pretend that at some number (4) the character magically becomes a subject expert in everything under that skill, they don't.

4. GURPS, the only other game I can think of with a single pool system does.

5. Why has this even become an issues? I know of very few if any games that have point totals as high as AToW, so why would it be an issues to lower them? High point totals don't work, they drive away players and are unnecessary that is more then likely why other game don't use them

As to something else that popped up, I don't feel SPA belong in the game at all. They are a completely AGoAC mechanic that do nothing for the RPG and only take up page space that could be used for optional rule exclusively important to the RPG. Again this goes back to having rules in the RPG that only are only useful in another completely different line from CGL.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 February 2021, 22:05:57
I just wanted to get further into my comment on the 5000 point pool.
IMHO, it exist for one reason and one reason alone. The Lifepath system.
The only reason to keep it then become to keep the Lifepath system.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 February 2021, 22:21:46
*nod*

It does seem odd that one of the chief complaints about character creation is complexity and yet most of the ideas being offered would actually make the process even more complex.

And here is where we disconnect.
The reason doing these type of things works in GURPS is because the point pool is only around 300-500 points (depending on the setting).
The main issues with AToW is the 5000 point pool leads to the appearance of complexity.
Unfortunately, appearance leads to fact in most GMs and players minds.
Fact leads to it not for me and bad sales
Bad sales lead to lines not getting reprinted or just dropped.

P.S. I know it sounds like Yoda. I realized about half way through and just went with it.  >:D 
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: warhammer74 on 14 February 2021, 22:29:16
I find Character creation a little harder in ATOW.  Than say MW2, MW3 Rpg.   But Its not a D20 game like  a Rifts or palladiums style game either.  So a little math is involved use your brain.   No big Deal As for MW:Destiny I think it sucks after reading thru the manual.
   As for hard copy on books everything I have is on pdf  except for a few TRO's and older books from wizkids and fasa.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 14 February 2021, 22:58:05
First not ignoring your post Daryk it was just easier to quote monbov.  :thumbsup:
Anyway, I first have to point out that this post is only addressing single pool systems which is rare in RPGs as most separate their pools or don't use them at all.
The only working truly single point system I know of is GURPS so that were a lot of these Ideas are based on.

1. My biggest problem with narrative Traits is that they don't correlate well or at all with more mechanically driven traits. For example Rank/Title/Bloodname costs are just ridiculous and are in know way equal to other Traits that provide a more meaningful advantage in play. To put it this way a BloodRight is something you are born with, and the Bloodname attached to it should be earned in play through the Bloodname trial so why does it have a point total? This is also where I start to see these Traits as a substitute for good Role playing.

2. When I say they don't correlate what I am getting at is they are three different type of stats that in and of themselves do different things. this is where the problem with high point totals start to rear their head. Why does a skill have to cost 20 XP for level 1 and an Attribute have a cost of 100 XP? Its it because Attributes are 5x better then Skill, no it because this is the arbitrary number they set to differentiate the to types of stats in a single pool system.

3. Yes and no, I feel that harder skills should cost more and not need a special mechanic of their own. As to Daryk, I find their approach to be one of the problems with the game. The Tier system IMHO is nonsensical in design and execution. Having a Network Admin/Computer Science degree I can say that the way the Computer skill and other Tier skill are presented makes no sense. Along with Small Arms, Marital Arts, etc. this is one of the skills I would breakdown. Programming (which I suck at) is not the same as Network operations or Network construction, and getting better at using a computer in no way makes you good at any of the above without directed study in the chosen topic. The Tier system likes to pretend that at some number (4) the character magically becomes a subject expert in everything under that skill, they don't.

4. GURPS, the only other game I can think of with a single pool system does.

5. Why has this even become an issues? I know of very few if any games that have point totals as high as AToW, so why would it be an issues to lower them? High point totals don't work, they drive away players and are unnecessary that is more then likely why other game don't use them

As to something else that popped up, I don't feel SPA belong in the game at all. They are a completely AGoAC mechanic that do nothing for the RPG and only take up page space that could be used for optional rule exclusively important to the RPG. Again this goes back to having rules in the RPG that only are only useful in another completely different line from CGL.

1.  I do admit the way they decided to handle Bloodname, Rank, and Title in particular need work.  Kind of have to with some of my more extensive house rules dealing with those three in particular.  But to say they are priced ridiculously does do a disservice to the idea behind the traits.  As much as a Trueborn character may be born with a Bloodname that they can eventually try for not all Bloodnames are equal in Clan politics and sometimes people want to play more experienced characters and something needs to exist to represent this reality for a character that already has a Bloodname.  Again as much as Rank needs work having the kind of resources at your disposal as what would come with it can have all sorts of implications on a campaign.  Title is very much a combination of the two others in that not all Titles are created equal and they all come with some measure of assets that can very much impact a campaign.

I will repeat myself just to be clear I do think AToW and even the Companion have failed to properly reflect this but to remove them or sideline them would be a massive disservice to the Battletech RPG as these are very much core concepts to the Battletech setting.

2.  If really pressed I am pretty sure I could make a case that attributes are at minimum five times more useful in AToW and that the cost structure isn't completely out of whack.  Honestly I don't think large numbers or a single pool is the problem for the rest but more of a general information overload that overwhelms someone who isn't a well organized type.  Which to be clear I do consider a significant problem.

3.  I also have a degree in Computer Network Administration and have worked as an Independent Contractor as a field engineer and in my experience the tiering of Computers makes absolute sense to me.  I also have some small experience with hand to hand and melee and again I can completely understand the tiers for those.  Now yes no one is a complete expert but for the sake of simplicity something has to give and AToW already threatens to overload a character with more skills than will be useful an a campaign.  Hell I can accept an argument it already goes past that point.  Now re-working some traits to go to a 4 column table of XP to skill rank for skills I'm not entirely against.  I'd just prefer 1 column for simplicity and not just sidestepping one complexity by introducing a new one in it's place.

4.  Some day I may actually have to sit down with GURPs and learn it.

5.  Progression/reward.  As tempting and as simple as dividing AToW's XP totals across the board by 10 may be it does create the question of how much XP can you really give out without causing problems because there is such a thing as progressing too fast.  Too slow is also problematic.

And here is where we disconnect.
The reason doing these type of things works in GURPS is because the point pool is only around 300-500 points (depending on the setting).
The main issues with AToW is the 5000 point pool leads to the appearance of complexity.
Unfortunately, appearance leads to fact in most GMs and players minds.
Fact leads to it not for me and bad sales
Bad sales lead to lines not getting reprinted or just dropped.

P.S. I know it sounds like Yoda. I realized about half way through and just went with it.  >:D 

To an extent I do not mind character creation being the complex part of the system but if it is done in such a way that character progression becomes more complex then that just shifts things and creates different problems.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 February 2021, 23:58:06
1.  I do admit the way they decided to handle Bloodname, Rank, and Title in particular need work.  Kind of have to with some of my more extensive house rules dealing with those three in particular.  But to say they are priced ridiculously does do a disservice to the idea behind the traits.  As much as a Trueborn character may be born with a Bloodname that they can eventually try for not all Bloodnames are equal in Clan politics and sometimes people want to play more experienced characters and something needs to exist to represent this reality for a character that already has a Bloodname.  Again as much as Rank needs work having the kind of resources at your disposal as what would come with it can have all sorts of implications on a campaign.  Title is very much a combination of the two others in that not all Titles are created equal and they all come with some measure of assets that can very much impact a campaign.

I will repeat myself just to be clear I do think AToW and even the Companion have failed to properly reflect this but to remove them or sideline them would be a massive disservice to the Battletech RPG as these are very much core concepts to the Battletech setting.


Let me put it in my prospective.

Bloodname: While you are correct that it has implications in the campaign, To me a point value is not needed. The power that this Trait provided the player is earned through an extensive trial where the PC/NPC shows their martial prowess by defeating all challengers to the name. Then there is the problem with different Bloodname being worth different points. First the lineage of a Bloodname can mean more prestige but doe not automatically mean more power. As has been seen in the BTU the most prestigious Bloodname don't always lead to higher leadership positions and you still have to prove your skills. As for earning them a more prestigious just mean you will face more skilled opposites. And while this may come with greater power, it is due to the might makes right philosophy of the clans. The player gets this by his/her skill at arms that they have already developed and not some extra pool of point that they spend.

Rank: Depending on what military force you come from (US Air Force for me) most Ranks up to Staff ranks in the military are time in service oriented. It is rare outside of battlefield promotions for anyone to raise in rank without time in service. Again this is a function of skill/time/brown nosing that has nothing to do with some mystical magical extra pool of XP.


2.  If really pressed I am pretty sure I could make a case that attributes are at minimum five times more useful in AToW and that the cost structure isn't completely out of whack.  Honestly I don't think large numbers or a single pool is the problem for the rest but more of a general information overload that overwhelms someone who isn't a well organized type.  Which to be clear I do consider a significant problem.

Not much more to say here but, some like it some don't.

3.  I also have a degree in Computer Network Administration and have worked as an Independent Contractor as a field engineer and in my experience the tiering of Computers makes absolute sense to me.  I also have some small experience with hand to hand and melee and again I can completely understand the tiers for those.  Now yes no one is a complete expert but for the sake of simplicity something has to give and AToW already threatens to overload a character with more skills than will be useful an a campaign.  Hell I can accept an argument it already goes past that point.  Now re-working some traits to go to a 4 column table of XP to skill rank for skills I'm not entirely against.  I'd just prefer 1 column for simplicity and not just sidestepping one complexity by introducing a new one in it's place.

On this one we can agree to disagree, as the true point of my statement is the Tier system and the idea of have multiple mechanics for dealing with Skill is not good.

4.  Some day I may actually have to sit down with GURPs and learn it.

I will address this in its own post.

5.  Progression/reward.  As tempting and as simple as dividing AToW's XP totals across the board by 10 may be it does create the question of how much XP can you really give out without causing problems because there is such a thing as progressing too fast.  Too slow is also problematic.

On this one I have to totally disagree. Almost every other game on the market does so without having to use multiple thousands of points.
At this point this argument, which I hear all the time is just a sorry defense of AToW not the system. It doesn't need to be that way, it doesn't work any better than other system, and it in no way fixed some major problem that all other RPGs have.

To an extent I do not mind character creation being the complex part of the system but if it is done in such a way that character progression becomes more complex then that just shifts things and creates different problems.

Their is a big deference between Complex/Boring and Complex/Fun. That's where this system fail.

GURPS/Pendragon/twilight 2000 all have fairly complex character creation systems, but the key difference is they make the prosses fun and engaging to the players and don't make players keep going back an respending points they already spent.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 15 February 2021, 01:28:32
Let me put it in my prospective.

Bloodname: While you are correct that it has implications in the campaign, To me a point value is not needed. The power that this Trait provided the player is earned through an extensive trial where the PC/NPC shows their martial prowess by defeating all challengers to the name. Then there is the problem with different Bloodname being worth different points. First the lineage of a Bloodname can mean more prestige but doe not automatically mean more power. As has been seen in the BTU the most prestigious Bloodname don't always lead to higher leadership positions and you still have to prove your skills. As for earning them a more prestigious just mean you will face more skilled opposites. And while this may come with greater power, it is due to the might makes right philosophy of the clans. The player gets this by his/her skill at arms that they have already developed and not some extra pool of point that they spend.

Rank: Depending on what military force you come from (US Air Force for me) most Ranks up to Staff ranks in the military are time in service oriented. It is rare outside of battlefield promotions for anyone to raise in rank without time in service. Again this is a function of skill/time/brown nosing that has nothing to do with some mystical magical extra pool of XP.


Not much more to say here but, some like it some don't.

On this one we can agree to disagree, as the true point of my statement is the Tier system and the idea of have multiple mechanics for dealing with Skill is not good.

I will address this in its own post.

On this one I have to totally disagree. Almost every other game on the market does so without having to use multiple thousands of points.
At this point this argument, which I hear all the time is just a sorry defense of AToW not the system. It doesn't need to be that way, it doesn't work any better than other system, and it in no way fixed some major problem that all other RPGs have.

Their is a big deference between Complex/Boring and Complex/Fun. That's where this system fail.

GURPS/Pendragon/twilight 2000 all have fairly complex character creation systems, but the key difference is they make the prosses fun and engaging to the players and don't make players keep going back an respending points they already spent.

While it is true there are no promises that a certain Bloodname will ensure positions of power and you do have to earn it we do still see time and time again that certain Bloodnames do still show up more frequently than others in prominent positions and people with certain Bloodnames are treated differently.

Rank in Battletech also has plenty of indication that it doesn't have the same notion of Time in Service that the US military does.  Now that isn't to say I'd consider it inappropriate for a GM to just award a higher rank without charging a character XP or that advancing Rank should always come at the cost of XP but to me there should be an opportunity cost to start at a desired point with all the trappings that would come with it.

For the rest I do admit I'm actually not as opposed to certain ideas as I may come across.

Like I wouldn't complain if Attributes were given a non-linear cost structure but I've seen the kinds of attitudes that develop that I find concerning to say the least if some attributes are priced different than others far too many times.

Likewise as much as I understand it I can accept losing the tiering mechanic for the sake of simplicity and internal consistency.

Nor am I against figuring out a way to get smaller numbers involved in character creation/advancement.  Just inclined to keep in mind the progression issue.  I have seen the effects of both too fast and too slow.  Now fair enough some of that is probably going to have to be handled at the local level no matter what.

While I understand the intent behind the tiering mechanic and what it is supposed to represent I do find myself growing more of a mind that I can agree to doing away with it for greater simplicity and internal consistency.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 15 February 2021, 02:16:55
as to #4

GURPS is basically a 3d6 system where you try to roll equal or lower then the TN
TN = Effective skill (Attribute +/- skill level)+/- difficulty modifiers
Critical Success= Whenever you roll a natural 3 or 4, but increasing to 5 (Effective skill 15+) then 6 (Effective skill 16+) etc. as you become more skilled.
Critical Failure=A roll of 18 is always a critical miss. A roll of 17 is a critical miss unless your effective skill is 16 or better
Not going to get any further into the actual game mechanics as they are not important here and you need to buy the books for that. (Support the Designers)

As to the Important aspects.
The character creation system is a single pool system that has a pool total based on the power level of your game ranging from 25 (kids) to 1,000+ (godlike beings) with an average for space based games like Travaller of around  400 points.

There are 4  main Attributes ST (strengths)/DX (dexterity)/IQ (Intelligence)/HT (Health)
Each of these have a point cost of between 10-20 per level (IQ and DX have 20) depending on the number and importance of the skills and powers attached to them.
There are also a number of derived secondary attributes (like Hit Points (HP))that can be raise independently at reduced cost ( HP (2points per level))

Skills are progresses in a Attribute + or - fashion depending on there Difficulty. 
Difficulty= Easy, Average, Hard, Very Hard.
Point cost of skills is based the progression 1,2,4,8,12,16,20,24, etc.
Difficulty determines what level this progression starts at
Easy=Attribute +0
Average=Attribute -1
Hard=Attribute -2
Very Hard=Attribute -3
With unskilled determined by the skill itself (normally Attribute -4)

For example of rank.
Rank is worth 5 points per level if it coexists with Status (the norm), or 10 points per level if it replaces Status (very uncommon). max level 8.
But the difference here is the actual ranks (Captain/General/Sargent/Etc.) are not given. This is purely a representation of level of command and number of troops under said command. As even the charts in the game list multiple ranks under each level. In the end it comes down to Rank 2 Commands all Rank 1 with in the same command structure and so on.

Again not going to go into any more detail then this. Have to buy the game for that.

 
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 03:36:09
Way too much has been posted since I went to sleep, but I do want to address the Skill vs. Attribute cost thing.

Skills in AToW are normally bought to level 0 for 20 XP, 10 more for level 1 (30 total), 20 more for level 2 (50 total), etc.  That means 100 XP buys you about 3.5 levels of a Skill (100 being half way between 3 (80) and 4 (120)).

This granularity is why you see Modules granting XP in packages as small as 5.  5 XP won't force you to take a skill from Level 0 to Level 1, but does suggest you do so.  Obviously, this would seem to allow dividing EVERYTHING by 5 to cut the pool down to 1,000 points.  The down side of that is it makes Skill costs less intuitive, and complicates Fast/Slow Learner and Field Rebates.

And yes, I know Field Rebates are another source of pain.  But the variability there comes from the fact that different Fields have different numbers of Skills.  TPTB gave us the procedural rule for calculating the rebate so we could make our own Fields instead of adding a line to every single Field to list the rebate explicitly.  Where TPTB erred was in separating the Master Fields List from the Master Schools List in Stage 3 (the 8 pages of Stage 4 are unhelpfully between them).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 15 February 2021, 03:40:31
Way too much has been posted since I went to sleep, but I do want to address the Skill vs. Attribute cost thing.

Skills in AToW are normally bought to level 0 for 20 XP, 10 more for level 1 (30 total), 20 more for level 2 (50 total), etc.  That means 100 XP buys you about 3.5 levels of a Skill (100 being half way between 3 (80) and 4 (120)).

This granularity is why you see Modules granting XP in packages as small as 5.  5 XP won't force you to take a skill from Level 0 to Level 1, but does suggest you do so.  Obviously, this would seem to allow dividing EVERYTHING by 5 to cut the pool down to 1,000 points.  The down side of that is it makes Skill costs less intuitive, and complicates Fast/Slow Learner and Field Rebates.

And yes, I know Field Rebates are another source of pain.  But the variability there comes from the fact that different Fields have different numbers of Skills.  TPTB gave us the procedural rule for calculating the rebate so we could make our own Fields instead of adding a line to every single Field to list the rebate explicitly.  Where TPTB erred was in separating the Master Fields List from the Master Schools List in Stage 3 (the 8 pages of Stage 4 are unhelpfully between them).

Don't get me started on Fast/Slow Learner. :facepalm:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 03:59:29
It was annoying to program in to the spreadsheet, but doable.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 15 February 2021, 04:05:06
1. My biggest problem with narrative Traits is that they don't correlate well or at all with more mechanically driven traits. For example Rank/Title/Bloodname costs are just ridiculous and are in know way equal to other Traits that provide a more meaningful advantage in play. To put it this way a BloodRight is something you are born with, and the Bloodname attached to it should be earned in play through the Bloodname trial so why does it have a point total? This is also where I start to see these Traits as a substitute for good Role playing.

It has a point total because - and I've said this before - AToW is NOT a true RPG.

In any other RPG, a BloodName would be a pinnacle reward. The culmination of a campaign - even several campaigns - worth of effort. It is something your character would strive towards, and he'd have to work to make a name for himself, to earn glory, to earn prestige. He would have to battle foes on the battlefield, but also have to deal with the lethal Clan politics and BloodHouse rivalries. He would have to earn a sponsor or become adept enough that he would win a Grand Melee - and if he's that good, he's likely to get a sponsor, which si why the Melee is a poor route.

There are a myriad of campaign possibilities in obtaining a Bloodname....or you could pay a couple of Trait points and have it handed to you when you start play.

There probably isn't a greater example of how badly AToW and other BT RPGs are designed than to point out this flaw.

New characters should NOT start with a BloodName.

Quote
2. When I say they don't correlate what I am getting at is they are three different type of stats that in and of themselves do different things. this is where the problem with high point totals start to rear their head. Why does a skill have to cost 20 XP for level 1 and an Attribute have a cost of 100 XP? Its it because Attributes are 5x better then Skill, no it because this is the arbitrary number they set to differentiate the to types of stats in a single pool system

Generally speaking - it IS because Attributes are better. Improving an attribute by 1 point affects multiple skills and other factors - you might do more damage in combat or be able to carry a heavier load if you increase your STR. So Attributes should cost more to improve. Whether 5 is the best ratio is another question.

Quote
3. Yes and no, I feel that harder skills should cost more and not need a special mechanic of their own.

Having harder skills cost more IS a special mechanic of their own.

Quote
The Tier system IMHO is nonsensical in design and execution.

The Tier system has issues and doesn't mimic real life or real capabilities. But such considerations need to be balanced against gameplay. Designing a computer network and programming a video game are very different skillsets - though, the networking issue is probably best seen as a Comms Skill.

You can easily end up with a subskill system where some subskills are essentially unrelated to the parent and sibling skills, but are grouped together for simplicity and ganmeplay, while other subskills are related and feedback into the parent skill.

Subskills, Specialisations and Concentrations are probably a better system than Tiers, but there are are areas where merging different skills into one might be better


Quote
5. Why has this even become an issues? I know of very few if any games that have point totals as high as AToW, so why would it be an issues to lower them? High point totals don't work, they drive away players and are unnecessary that is more then likely why other game don't use them


Quote
As to something else that popped up, I don't feel SPA belong in the game at all. They are a completely AGoAC mechanic that do nothing for the RPG and only take up page space that could be used for optional rule exclusively important to the RPG. Again this goes back to having rules in the RPG that only are only useful in another completely different line from CGL.

Which shouldn't happen. MW2 had its BT integration rules in the companion....and that is where they should be.  The integration rules also took up a relative handful of pages and could have been reduced even more with some forethought....e.g. instead of actions doing x damage, divide the characters health monitor in say - 8 rows, each with BLD (or whatever) blocks. 1 point of BT damage simply rules out one line and you move onto the next with the appropriate damage and penalties.

The core rules should address Mechs and Mech combat as part of an integrated vehicle ruleset that is focussed on RPG style gameplay - and it should use the TRO stats (which would make BattleArmour, Protos, Mechs and vehicles essentially invulnerable to RPG scale PCs) . Anything more detailed can be added as an appendix if there is room, or saved for a Companion (assuming there is one)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 04:16:46
*snip*
The core rules should address Mechs and Mech combat as part of an integrated vehicle ruleset that is focussed on RPG style gameplay - and it should use the TRO stats (which would make BattleArmour, Protos, Mechs and vehicles essentially invulnerable to RPG scale PCs) . Anything more detailed can be added as an appendix if there is room, or saved for a Companion (assuming there is one)
Using TRO stats doesn't make anything invulnerable.  TRO 3085 exists, along with Tech Manual.  The AToW Companion finally gave us the rules TPTB used to derive the other two (and was based on rules going back to Combat Operations).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 15 February 2021, 04:29:23
Using TRO stats doesn't make anything invulnerable.  TRO 3085 exists, along with Tech Manual.  The AToW Companion finally gave us the rules TPTB used to derive the other two (and was based on rules going back to Combat Operations).

You take the weapons a typical PC team are likely to have and put them up against a Mech and then you don't nerf the Mech to "give the PCs a fighting chance" and yes - unless the PC have access to a few hundred infantry portable LRMs or the like, the Mech is going to be invulnerable to just about anything they can throw at it and they are going to die to anything the Mech uses to attack them.

Unless you think a PC armed with a longbow and some arrows, or a wooden club, should have the chance to destroy a Mech?

The TROs provide stats for Mechs and combat vehicles. Rather than worry about trying to integrate gameplay shortcuts form other BT games into the RPG or wasting space  on unnecessary conversion, the RPG should simply use the armour and weapons detailed in the TROs. Forget about a LRM doing 5D6+20 damage or whatever - just say it has the quality Anti-Mech (1). Don't try to recreate the wheel - use what is already there

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 04:54:49
That's... what I'm saying?  Tech Manual has the stats for every AToW weapon converted to TW scale.  It's already in the boardgame.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 15 February 2021, 05:05:47
That's... what I'm saying?  Tech Manual has the stats for every AToW weapon converted to TW scale.  It's already in the boardgame.

I think the point he is making is that a PC scale weapon is not going to even scratch a Mech.
So outside of a whole platoon of PCs fire on the mech together their is no point in having rules within the RPG for attacking mech with such weapons.
And on this I have to agree.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 05:15:26
A bog standard Auto-Rifle with 4AP/4BD (Ballistic) and a 15 round burst does 0.52 damage at TW scale.  That rounds up to 1.  Weaker weapons do need to be added up at the Squad or Platoon level to do damage, but most of them can get there (no, bows and arrows don't, even with Taurian Platoons of 30... some kind of explosive strapped to an arrow might... cue the A-Team or MacGyver music).  Clubs can theorertically get there, but you have to survive a swarm attack with most of the troops alive.  Jamming metal sticks into joints COULD work.  But the odds are REALLY low (as they should be).  Desperation counts at the RPG level, and it certainly shouldn't count any less than it does at the boardgame level.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 15 February 2021, 05:39:11
A bog standard Auto-Rifle with 4AP/4BD (Ballistic) and a 15 round burst does 0.52 damage at TW scale.  That rounds up to 1.  Weaker weapons do need to be added up at the Squad or Platoon level to do damage, but most of them can get there (no, bows and arrows don't, even with Taurian Platoons of 30... some kind of explosive strapped to an arrow might... cue the A-Team or MacGyver music).  Clubs can theorertically get there, but you have to survive a swarm attack with most of the troops alive.  Jamming metal sticks into joints COULD work.  But the odds are REALLY low (as they should be).  Desperation counts at the RPG level, and it certainly shouldn't count any less than it does at the boardgame level.

The difference is that in the boardgame the units have to be able to do damage or they are not worth their BV cost.
And unlike the Boardgame 0.52 damage should stay 0.52 damage and not round up because its a RPG not the boardgame.
As stated the RPG is about PC and what PC can do, they don't need to justify their existence by being able to damage a mech like they need to be able to in the boardgame.
If you want them to fight mechs play TW. Don't bog down the RPG with rules on how to make desperation attacks on Mechs.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 05:41:29
The current RPG rules enable that 0.52 to increase with Measure of Success.  The AP vs. BAR rules were written at the AToW level, and work.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 15 February 2021, 05:54:31
The current RPG rules enable that 0.52 to increase with Measure of Success.  The AP vs. BAR rules were written at the AToW level, and work.

That's not the point.
The point is damaging a Mech should not even be an adjective of the rules if it happens as a byproduct then so be it.
If your PC are in a position where they need to takedown a Mech outside some narrative action, then the adventure was already badly made.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 06:39:17
No argument adventure-wise!  I'm just saying the rules of the universe make it posisble, if incredibly unlikely (as it should be).

The D&D analog to this situation is that a 1st level party might ding a dragon, but will still lose if they don't run for their lives.  For the WWII analog, see Saving Private Ryan and the "socks plus explosives" attack on the Panzer.  Desperation moves should be possible in an RPG.  They should ALSO be exceptionally hazardous.  And they ARE in AToW right now.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 15 February 2021, 07:58:30
And just to be clear on an earlier post.
I am in no way advocating that CGL should give up on making an RPG and just license a GURPS supplement.
Though I would support it if they did.
The point of the post was to show I know a single point pool system can work, just not the one they made for AToW.

Now you also have to look at the big difference between the two system.
It took SJG 4 editions using the same basic mechanics and 18 years of working out the bugs to bring the system to were it was when it released in 2004. And they are still working on it and improving it.
AToW is 10 years old and has little in the way of support.
The main issues with most of the Mechwarrior RPGs is that they never support them well. They never try to fix them, and they just bring out a total new system every so many years. 3rd edition being the only one they try to truly support. Why they chose the worst of the bunch to support I will never know.
For a system to develop it needs to be supported and refined. If you are just going to throw the baby out with the bathwater each time you are never going to get anywhere.
And to me that has been the most infuriating part of all the Mechwarrior RPG.
Again I think AToW can be saved, but the odds are low that they will even try.
As I said before If Destiny does well then AToW is done.
If Destiny does poorly then IMHO all further Mechwarrior RPGs are done.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 08:06:50
I very much agree with the "baby and bath water" analogy.  2e threw out all the stuff in the back of the original TRO 3026.  3e threw out 2d6.  AToW threw out 2d10 to get 2d6 back, and random rolls for character generation (that should have gone, in my opinion).  I can't speak to the other system.

I appreciate your position on GURPS.  I didn't take any of your posts as advocating TPTB do that.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 15 February 2021, 12:21:05
I'll admit this entire conversation has had me thinking about how I would do a priority system character creation option for AToW and I think I have a beta finally ready to share for feedback.

Placing it in my house rules thread so we don't derail this thread.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 15 February 2021, 12:39:16
I very much agree with the "baby and bath water" analogy.  2e threw out all the stuff in the back of the original TRO 3026.  3e threw out 2d6.  AToW threw out 2d10 to get 2d6 back, and random rolls for character generation (that should have gone, in my opinion).  I can't speak to the other system.

I appreciate your position on GURPS.  I didn't take any of your posts as advocating TPTB do that.

Mechwarrior 1 was not much of a RPG it was at most a pilot simulator. And to be fair not even really good at that.

I think that every incarnation of Mechwarrior to date has been an overreaction to issues with the previous edition.
Mechwarrior 2 was an overreaction to Mechwarrior being perceived poor RPG so they used a variant of the Shadowrun RPG.
MechWarrior 3 was an overreaction to complaints about the power gaming aspects of Mechwarrior 2
AToW was an overreaction to complaints about the random tables in the Lifepath system and underpowered character of MechWarrior 3
Destiny was an overreaction to complaints about the complexity of AToW.

The track recorded for the Mechwarrior RPG is to not try to fix anything, it's to throw it out and start over.
The funny thing is almost all of these editions could have been fixed if some work was put into them.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 12:48:51
And I'm working on it!  That's why my sig block has grown so much.

I look forward to your proposal, Monbvol!  I think I'm subscribed to your thread, so I should see when you post over there...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 15 February 2021, 13:19:16
It is up.  I probably should have also added a note that I haven't actually tried to make a character with it yet but I think that will come down to how I decide to handle Special Abilities or what feedback I get on that aspect.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2021, 13:56:06
I see it!  It's there for everybody else too: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/monbvol's-house-rule-emporium/msg1541011/?topicseen#new
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Grand_dm on 05 November 2021, 06:56:37
I would really like to see an updated book published. Having played the game now for a year, I like it. But the organization of the original book is akin to deciphering the Dead Sea scrolls.

That in my opinion is its biggest issue.

Also why is the Atow Companion not available as a POD? Driverthrurpg would work.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: guardiandashi on 05 November 2021, 22:57:22
I think the biggest issue with ATOW character creation isn't so much how many pages it takes up as how stuff is laid out.
like the fact that the standard 850 base xp is off in its own spot and not really obvious and similar
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 06 November 2021, 08:36:34
That's just one example.  For the full aging rules, you need to flip to a section in the back of the book.  Organization is one thing I'll never even try to defend about my favorite edition.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 November 2021, 04:28:35
I would really like to see an updated book published. Having played the game now for a year, I like it. But the organization of the original book is akin to deciphering the Dead Sea scrolls.

That in my opinion is its biggest issue.

Also why is the Atow Companion not available as a POD? Driverthrurpg would work.

For the same reason that the MW2 Companion is and the MW2 corebook is not.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 November 2021, 06:31:09
Did I miss it?  What was the reason again?  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 13 November 2021, 08:03:15
Did I miss it?  What was the reason again?  ???

its a joke because the the two have the exact opposite availability.
For MW2 its because they don't have a PDF draft of it to sell and would have to make a scan version of it.
I really don't know the reason for the AToW companion.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 13 November 2021, 08:16:22
Ah, I remember someone mentioning the "no pdf" problem.  Agreed that the AToW Companion is a mystery.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: guardiandashi on 13 November 2021, 13:51:00
with the mw 2nd edition it might be because the core book was done before pdf's were really a standard thing but the companion was built and laid out in pdf.

as far as atow and atow companion no explanation
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 13 November 2021, 23:39:27
Time to destroy an old MW2e core book by slicing the spine, scanning the pages, converting via OCR, and correcting the mistakes?

Plus removing/converting any older artwork?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 14 November 2021, 04:28:21
Time to destroy an old MW2e core book by slicing the spine, scanning the pages, converting via OCR, and correcting the mistakes?

Plus removing/converting any older artwork?

Ouch!!
kind of extreme.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 14 November 2021, 06:20:19
And can really only be done legally by CGL itself...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 14 November 2021, 21:49:17
Ouch!!
kind of extreme.

IIRC, someone had to do it to the Star League Sourcebook so it was available as pdf.  Think of it as surgery, painful yet necessary.

Still, for the surgery I'd be open to editing the Land Grant table on page 157 so it mainly focuses on income per noble rank rather than land area.  If someone wonders why income is kept instead of land area, we can use the paragraph on page 156 to explain why.  This is from MW2e -> Titles & Nobility -> Landholdings -> Holdings -> 2nd paragraph:
Quote
Holdings vary in scope and value.  The Duke of Omaha directly controls only a few thousand square kilometers of Newbraska's northern continent, but those holdings include the capital of one of the most important grain-producing agricultural worlds in the Federated Suns.  The Duchy of Fenestere, on the other hand, includes five star systems with a total of 18 planets.  Only one of these - a tide-locked, thin-aired, Low-G, fire-and-ice expanse of desert and glaciers - is even marginally inhabitable.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: twycross on 15 November 2021, 22:21:01
IIRC, someone had to do it to the Star League Sourcebook so it was available as pdf.  Think of it as surgery, painful yet necessary.

I remember reading or hearing somewhere...for the life of me, I can't remember where...that Warner Doles provided the sacrificial SL Sourcebook. He was, iirc, the one that had to do the dissection and post mortem scanning as well.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 16 November 2021, 01:29:24
And can really only be done legally by CGL itself...

This depends on how it is done.
If it's for personal use, it should be fine.
If you do it then post it for free then your in violation without approval.
If you do it then provide it to CGL to post you should also be good.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 18 January 2022, 08:09:28
I think the biggest issue with ATOW character creation isn't so much how many pages it takes up as how stuff is laid out.
like the fact that the standard 850 base xp is off in its own spot and not really obvious and similar

The amount of pages wouldn't be a concern....IF the page count didn't have limits. The book layout is certainly a concern but the simple truth is that you could remove a third...even half if you were ruthless enough...of the current book and not lose anything important, for an RPG anyway. Some of that gain would be lost through implementation of other systems such as a better chargen system, but that still leaves plenty of room to add in these basic features which were cut, many of which ended up in the Companion.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Yskonyn on 24 January 2022, 09:48:46
If CGL is watching; here's another +1 to an updated and consolidated AToW re-issue.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 28 January 2022, 15:36:27
A very good sign is that the new Tamar Rising book had stats for both A Time of War and Mechwarrior Destiny.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 28 January 2022, 18:05:01
A very good sign is that the new Tamar Rising book had stats for both A Time of War and Mechwarrior Destiny.

For me, I am not sure this really means anything at all. These are just the current versions out there. At most I would say it doesn't make MW:D look good. As why would  they waste the space on AToW (a game that's no even  available outside PDF) if the former was doing well.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 January 2022, 18:18:20
I think it means they're treating the game I can't name like Alpha Strike.  As long as AToW continues to exist I'm happy, even if there is a parallel set of rules with a slightly different focus.  As others have said, BattleTech is a big tent, scratching the itches of a wide vartiety of folks.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 28 January 2022, 19:09:27
For me, I am not sure this really means anything at all. These are just the current versions out there. At most I would say it doesn't make MW:D look good. As why would  they waste the space on AToW (a game that's no even  available outside PDF) if the former was doing well.

Given how AToW and MW:D appeal to two different styles of play, I think it means they are choosing to support both.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 January 2022, 19:14:18
I certainly hope so!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 28 January 2022, 19:38:28
Given how AToW and MW:D appeal to two different styles of play, I think it means they are choosing to support both.
I think it means they're treating the game I can't name like Alpha Strike.  As long as AToW continues to exist I'm happy, even if there is a parallel set of rules with a slightly different focus.  As others have said, BattleTech is a big tent, scratching the itches of a wide vartiety of folks.

The question is are they supporting the games or placating the players?
Both games have major flaws that sometimes make them unplayable, Character creation and others for AToW, and Vehicle combat and a general lack of explanation for MW:D. Yet the best they give is a few pages here or there with the guns of the week or some modified affiliations for the era. To me this is TPTB throwing in a page or two to get RPG players to buy books that they otherwise wouldn't need to make a buck, and ignoring the issues that need to be fixed in the games in question.

So for me the answer to the above question is this is Placation not support.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 28 January 2022, 19:42:40
I prefer to think they are supporting boith games.  But I'm an optimist, so who knows?  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 29 January 2022, 22:00:34
Since ATOW is many years out of print, people should be glad they are still getting a shout out.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Grand_dm on 30 January 2022, 10:04:48
I'm convinced more people would be playing the game if the book was reprinted. The original is just a terrible jumble. Related rules all over the place. And the stupid fiction cluttering every chapter up.

It needs to be like the Battletech Manual. Just give us the rules.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: BrianDavion on 30 January 2022, 20:55:37
I'm convinced more people would be playing the game if the book was reprinted. The original is just a terrible jumble. Related rules all over the place. And the stupid fiction cluttering every chapter up.

It needs to be like the Battletech Manual. Just give us the rules.

agreed. fiction in the books ain't a bad idea, but maybe one story and release a "free to download" anthology
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 30 January 2022, 21:08:56
I think they would have to revamp the character creation system.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: abou on 06 February 2022, 21:22:38
I imagine CGL has done a cost-benefit analysis and decided to not focus on a new version of AToW anytime soon. They are likely busy with the next wave of products -- with or without a Kickstarter.  My best guess is that there are not enough people interested in an RPG for them to want to do a new AToW. That means AToW -- and maybe even Destiny -- will continue to limp along as it is "supported", but not really.

Although is the lack of interest because people don't want an RPG for the BattleTech universe OR because the rules system has too many flaws and lacks support?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 06 February 2022, 21:33:21
That's the catch 22 isn't it?

Which is also kind of the problem because I think it is a case of all of the above.

Now I know there are statements by Paul on these forums that if you go looking for them that there may be hope for CGL knowing they need to at least revise AToW but how much of a priority it is currently or if it'll even stay on the priority list at all is not something any of us can know right now.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 06 February 2022, 21:44:50
Agreed, monbvol... definitely a Catch-22.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 06 February 2022, 22:01:18
Something to keep in mind is CGL is a small company that has enough work in the pipeline for a firm easily double its size (just a guess from my interactions with them) across multiple product lines.

So it is entirely possible that revisions to AToW are in the pipeline but keep getting pushed back due to time constraints on other projects.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: abou on 06 February 2022, 23:10:43
Yeah... but CGL hasn't exactly been great with a lot of products. I still can't believe we actually got TRO: Irregulars. And look how long it took for us to get to Interstellar Ops, which they still ended up splitting out into Campaign Ops. Now those actually came, but there is the long list of novels that has essentially become vaporware.

What was implied, but not said, in my last post was that I think the problem with a BattleTech RPG is that we just don't have the system people want to play. And if this is supposed to be the era of the BattleTech Revival, then now is the time to fix that. Especially since it has been almost 13 years since AToW was published.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 07 February 2022, 02:45:30
I think the main issues is that TPTB have a history of overreacting to criticism of the current RPG.
They have yet to just fix or revise a RPG, and instead drop an entirely new game. Throwing out the baby with the bath water so to speak.
So I don't expect them to fix the current games and when they finally get back around to them we will get an entirely new game with its own problems.
I hope I'm wrong but the history of the Battletech RPG in all its incarnations seem to support this.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 07 February 2022, 07:45:08
I think the main issues is that TPTB have a history of overreacting to criticism of the current RPG.
They have yet to just fix or revise a RPG, and instead drop an entirely new game. Throwing out the baby with the bath water so to speak.
So I don't expect them to fix the current games and when they finally get back around to them we will get an entirely new game with its own problems.
I hope I'm wrong but the history of the Battletech RPG in all its incarnations seem to support this.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't AToW and Destiny ones CGL created and the previous ones were from previous holders of the license/rights?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Atlas3060 on 07 February 2022, 10:40:49
Please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't AToW and Destiny ones CGL created and the previous ones were from previous holders of the license/rights?
You are correct.
A Time of War and Mechwarrior Destiney are CGL creations.
MW3:RPG aka CBT:RPG was FanPro and also FASA during the first run if I recall
the other previous Mechwarrior iterations were FASA.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 07 February 2022, 10:42:45
Then based on my interactions and observations with CGL, I'll stand by my assessment that they both will get updates and tweaks over time. They are just swamped and in a state of catch up as the Kickstarter pushed their timeline ahead by about 2-3 years IIRC for releasing content.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 07 February 2022, 17:09:27
Please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't AToW and Destiny ones CGL created and the previous ones were from previous holders of the license/rights?

If you don't see Destiny as a direct overreaction to the criticism that AToW is to not working then I don't know what to tell you.
To me it is a continuation of the trend that has been with the MechWarrior RPGs since the beginning.

Then based on my interactions and observations with CGL, I'll stand by my assessment that they both will get updates and tweaks over time. They are just swamped and in a state of catch up as the Kickstarter pushed their timeline ahead by about 2-3 years IIRC for releasing content.

What updates and tweaks are you referring to?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 07 February 2022, 17:29:27
If you don't see Destiny as a direct overreaction to the criticism that AToW is to not working then I don't know what to tell you.
To me it is a continuation of the trend that has been with the MechWarrior RPGs since the beginning.

I see Destiny as the RPG for Alpha Strike. Easier to digest and play. I see AToW as the RPG for Total Warfare.

What updates and tweaks are you referring to?

Errata, rule changes, QOL Improvements, etc. I've been watching CGL's actions and listening to what they've been saying and NOT saying. It all tells me they are over worked with a very large and long pipeline right now. Give them some more time. The pandemic and shipping issues have made it exponetionally harder on them.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 07 February 2022, 17:52:50
I see Destiny as the RPG for Alpha Strike. Easier to digest and play. I see AToW as the RPG for Total Warfare.

Errata, rule changes, QOL Improvements, etc. I've been watching CGL's actions and listening to what they've been saying and NOT saying. It all tells me they are over worked with a very large and long pipeline right now. Give them some more time. The pandemic and shipping issues have made it exponetionally harder on them.

Again I don't know what to tell you. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt that's up to you. After almost 30 years of dealing with the battletech PTB I'm not.

As for the pandemic and shipping issues. When is this going to stop being an excuse for companies to not deliver product? It would be fine if like some companies they show some progress and then it got held up in the printers, but the idea that shipping issues are the reason no work at all has been done brings it into the excuse and not issue category.

The only errata sheet that I know of for AToW is mostly proofreading errors and the only rule changes I know of was the change in the cost of Fast and Slow Learner.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: rjhancock on 07 February 2022, 18:02:52
Let's just move on then shall we?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 09 February 2022, 00:05:13
What I want to see from CGL on AToW is a revised edition that;
1. Keeps the core RPG mechanics in place, they work once you get past character creation.
2. Fixes the character creation system removing the light outline nature of the system and makes your choses matter.
    A. Makes packages that are complete and don't just give suggestions on Attributes/Traits/Skills
    B. Gives hard and fast numbers for things like Field Skill packages.
    C. Adds depth to the later Paths. (Unique schools and cultural paths)
    D. Gives Traits unique costs (not just multiples of 100 XP) that are modifiable so they can drop all the like Traits (Examples: Vehicle, Custom Vehicle, Own Vehicle, Vehicle Quirks)
    E. Make it crystal clear that Trait cost are just for character creation and don't carry over to active play. You don't have to pay 100-200 more XP to switch to a heavier mech in play if its
    available.
3. A vehicle combat system that uses the RPG rule so as not to change the flow of the game.
    A. Simplified combat rules similar to Destiny, but not as watered down.
    B. I would suggest a Destiny/Alpha strike hybrid.
4. Drop the idea that Battlearmor needs its own combat system and integrate them back into the RPG rules.
5. Stories are great, but one short one is enough. Stop filling every chapter with 2-4 page novelettes.
6. Add an in-depth character creation outline for new players.
7. Don't go the Shadowrun 6th edition route.

While these are not all necessary for me to consider playing (except may be the first two for character creation) it would take at least some moves in this way for me to give it another try.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: StCptMara on 09 February 2022, 03:42:49
What I want to see from CGL on AToW is a revised edition that;
1. Keeps the core RPG mechanics in place, they work once you get past character creation.
2. Fixes the character creation system removing the light outline nature of the system and makes your choses matter.
    A. Makes packages that are complete and don't just give suggestions on Attributes/Traits/Skills
    B. Gives hard and fast numbers for things like Field Skill packages.
    C. Adds depth to the later Paths. (Unique schools and cultural paths)
    D. Gives Traits unique costs (not just multiples of 100 XP) that are modifiable so they can drop all the like Traits (Examples: Vehicle, Custom Vehicle, Own Vehicle, Vehicle Quirks)
    E. Make it crystal clear that Trait cost are just for character creation and don't carry over to active play. You don't have to pay 100-200 more XP to switch to a heavier mech in play if its
    available.

Truthfully, the biggest issue with AToW Chargen is....there is so much number crunching. I love the life path method,
but you have to do the whole thing, calculate out the price of your field, apply the field discount, and then calculate out the actual skill ranks for the given skills after everything, and then do the Optimization step.

I hate to say it, but I actually think something similar to the Traveler RPGs, where each stage in the life path actually gives you set skill increases and/or attribute increases and traits are all from random events, might be the best way to go.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 09 February 2022, 04:36:00
They tried the random event thing in 3rd edition... it wasn't great.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: StCptMara on 09 February 2022, 05:12:30
They tried the random event thing in 3rd edition... it wasn't great.

It wasn't great because it was just poorly implemented. As I said, looking at (later editions of) Traveller is a good place to start. One
major issue with the random events in 3rd Edition was simply that they often seemed irrelevant, or made little sense. Star Trek Adventures,
the current Star Trek RPG, also uses Random Events to do some elements in chargen. And then you have the Heritage Tables in all editions
of Legend of the Five Rings. Random Events *can* work well. Just....MW3rd, with its already involved math handled them poorly because they
just added more math...MW3rd and AToW probably would have done better to have been licensed GURPS products, and would have been less
math heavy.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 09 February 2022, 06:20:50
They tried the random event thing in 3rd edition... it wasn't great.

The problem with 3rd edition random event tables where, they ran the gantlet between the rolls being to good and way to bad.
Besides that the Character creation system in 3rd was actually a lot better then what we have now.
1. You didn't have the issues with paying for Traits and Attributes you didn't get.
2. Traits and Attributes where bought from their own set XP Pool.
3. Optimization was quirkier. 
4. The Paths where more immersive.
5. Character creation didn't feel like just adding up meaningless numbers.

Overall it was a far better system with just one flaw.
The system was ok with just the 2d6 random roll, still needed to be toned down though, but instead they up the problem by switching to 2d10 and making the far ends even larger issues (Superhuman or crippled)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 09 February 2022, 06:26:07
It wasn't great because it was just poorly implemented. As I said, looking at (later editions of) Traveller is a good place to start. One
major issue with the random events in 3rd Edition was simply that they often seemed irrelevant, or made little sense. Star Trek Adventures,
the current Star Trek RPG, also uses Random Events to do some elements in chargen. And then you have the Heritage Tables in all editions
of Legend of the Five Rings. Random Events *can* work well. Just....MW3rd, with its already involved math handled them poorly because they
just added more math...MW3rd and AToW probably would have done better to have been licensed GURPS products, and would have been less
math heavy.

I'm a huge fan of GURPS, but math light it is not.
As for Legend of the Five Rings, the Heritage Tables only add flavor advantage/disadvantages. You don't really get life threatening ones.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 09 February 2022, 19:09:14
GURPS is also a 3d6 system...  :P
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 09 February 2022, 19:20:44
The problem with 3rd edition random event tables where, they ran the gantlet between the rolls being to good and way to bad.
(snip)
Overall it was a far better system with just one flaw.
The system was ok with just the 2d6 random roll, still needed to be toned down though, but instead they up the problem by switching to 2d10 and making the far ends even larger issues (Superhuman or crippled)

What should have been done for all the random charts is making them the same range.  I.e. all 2d6, all 3d6, all 2d10, or whatever.  This way a GM could tell their players they have X number of points to spend on the lifepath charts.

If using 2d6 and the GM wants an average game, the players get 28 pts to spend on the 4 lifepath rolls.  If the GM wants a semi-heroic game, the players get more than 28 pts.

This may wind up with min-maxing where players take some rolls as extremely low to get one roll extremely high, but that is gaming.  If done well, the players might have gone with X points to spend on the lifepath charts, and for every pt not spent they get some amount of XP they can spend as they choose.  This amount of XP is less than they would have spent to get the benefits of a 1 pt higher on a lifepath roll, but can be used for anything.


At least it is not Traveller where it was possible to die during character creation.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 09 February 2022, 20:34:00
I might be remembering wrong, but I think there was at least one random result that was at least equivalent to character death in 3rd edition..
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 09 February 2022, 22:13:20
I might be remembering wrong, but I think there was at least one random result that was at least equivalent to character death in 3rd edition..

There were some that kept you from making the character you wanted. But none that were the equivalent of death that I remember.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 09 February 2022, 22:14:32
They could make a character downright unplayable and make it impossible to stick to your original character concept.

I'm not against random events but ever since I watched a member of our gaming group at the time start out trying to make a police officer but get so derailed and frustrated by the random events that he decided his character was a serial killer instead I'm firmly in the camp that if they are included they need to be such that they never derail a concept completely.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: StCptMara on 10 February 2022, 02:27:01
They could make a character downright unplayable and make it impossible to stick to your original character concept.

I'm not against random events but ever since I watched a member of our gaming group at the time start out trying to make a police officer but get so derailed and frustrated by the random events that he decided his character was a serial killer instead I'm firmly in the camp that if they are included they need to be such that they never derail a concept completely.

I totally get this. I like the idea that they do things a character might be able to work around (like a Lost Limb or a bad Reputation) but should not go into areas that actually cripple the concept someone taking that life path would want (i.e., they should not end up with your House 'Mechwarrior dishonorably discharged and Wanted). At the same time, the positive qualities should be stuff that won't challenge the writing of your character, so Wealth? Sure! Rank/Commission? Maybe... Title? No!

I also very much like how Destiny handles the Vehicle: taking the trait a couple levels above what you want means you own it. Rather than having to take the Owns Vehicle Trait. Admittedly, I do think Custom Vehicle should be kept separate, just to represent that having something non-standard is a significant investment.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 10 February 2022, 21:25:50
I agree with StCptMara.
The random tables should be used to add to the story that the player through character creation is trying to tell about the PCs past.
It should never derail the story or force an unwanted outcome, but instead augment and add flavor to said story.
It should also give supporting ideas like enemies, allies and/or open up new paths for the PC like offering (if the player wants only) officers training, recruitment into intelligence agencies, Etc.
Thing like this enhance the character but don't derail the players vision of what they want the final character to be.

I have said this multiple times for multiple RPG "Player/GM don't need the game to tell them what their characters are going to be. The game is there just to give them the mechanics and framework to be said character." This concept has been lost on a lot of RPG designers in the last few years. They all seem to think that the game should decide how your characters are made (concept not mechanics) how the game is run or the narrative told and how characters should act during the game. (the dice say you character is: scared, angry, Etc.)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 10 February 2022, 21:48:25
The funny thing about all of this is "if" they where to reuse the 3rd edition character creation rule they would just need to remove or revamp the random tables and change out a few skill/Trait names.
This would give them a wealth of already established paths to work with.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: TheOldDragoon on 17 February 2022, 12:06:35
Replying to the "GURPS is 3d6" comment.

I ran GURPS MechWarrior for years, but what we did was your Pilot and Gunnery when mounted was equal to 20-GURPS Skill.  So if you had a 16 in Pilot BattleMech, it worked out to a 4 in Battletech.  This made being a competent MechWarrior pretty damned expensive in GURPS terms, especially since we broke Gunnery up into Ballistic/Energy/Missile.  But it kept everyone from being a 0/0 P/G within a few sessions.

Right now I'm looking hard at Mongoose Traveller 2nd Edition and Stars Without Number as engines for MechWarrior.  I've got a Destiny campaign running now, but I'm not entirely happy with how the mechanics are working out.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 17 February 2022, 18:35:13
Glad you found a solution from GURPS...  :thumbsup:

Can NOT comment on that other RPG system.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Greatclub on 18 April 2022, 14:11:41
I'm wondering how a 'blades in the dark' mod would work.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 18 April 2022, 18:50:31
Is that the "all rogues all the time" RPG?  I might have played that once...  8)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 19 April 2022, 03:09:37
All other mechanical issues aside.
The main issue with ATOW is that it has to meet the requirements of two completely different groups.
Pure RPG players and Table top Boardgame players.
And the middle ground doesn't quite work for either.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Paul on 19 April 2022, 19:39:55
And the middle ground doesn't quite work for either.

Nice, have one these:
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 19 April 2022, 20:52:20
I think we could get there with enough effort... I at least am willing...  8)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: StCptMara on 20 April 2022, 01:19:49
All other mechanical issues aside.
The main issue with ATOW is that it has to meet the requirements of two completely different groups.
Pure RPG players and Table top Boardgame players.
And the middle ground doesn't quite work for either.

Isn't Destiny the middle ground?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 20 April 2022, 03:09:20
Isn't Destiny the middle ground?

No, it's even more to the far left then most RPG players like.

And geared towards the super casual players like D&D 5th edition.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: StCptMara on 21 April 2022, 03:45:40
No, it's even more to the far left then most RPG players like.

And geared towards the super casual players like D&D 5th edition.

I am going to disagree there. I don't think most RPG players want spreadsheets. They want to be able to build their character over a single session, and then jump in to playing. Which is what Destiny does.

D&D will always be geared towards new gamers, because they know they are the gateway game. I would not look at that as a negative. Destiny serves the purpose of being an effective pilot generator, and an RPG, which is why I say it is close to that middle ground.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Elmoth on 21 April 2022, 04:05:27
No, it's even more to the far left then most RPG players like.

And geared towards the super casual players like D&D 5th edition.

"Not oriented towards numbers combos" and "casual player" are 2 VERY different things here. Quite a few gamers I know do not like number crunching because they want to role play not roll play. I would be wary to say that they are casual for that.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 21 April 2022, 06:02:58
I am going to disagree there. I don't think most RPG players want spreadsheets. They want to be able to build their character over a single session, and then jump in to playing. Which is what Destiny does.

D&D will always be geared towards new gamers, because they know they are the gateway game. I would not look at that as a negative. Destiny serves the purpose of being an effective pilot generator, and an RPG, which is why I say it is close to that middle ground.

Look, I'm not going to argue the good and bad about Destiny as I don't feel it has any good.
I don't even look at it as a true table top RPG, it's more like a theater of the mind game.
so, no it is not anywhere near the middle ground.
But the point I was making about AToW is that it is more towards the Boardgamer side then the RPG side.

Charts, Spreadsheet, ridiculous amounts of plug and play traits for every aspect of life, everything down to the equipment having to be balances, etc.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 21 April 2022, 06:25:24
"Not oriented towards numbers combos" and "casual player" are 2 VERY different things here. Quite a few gamers I know do not like number crunching because they want to role play not roll play. I would be wary to say that they

Not sure what the last part was going to be so I will go with what made it to print.

People seem to think I think AToW is at a good place and I am defending it, far from it.
That's why I put almost 2 years into bringing Mechwarrior 2nd edition up-to-snuff.
I look at AToW as a overblown train wreck that took the worst point buy system they could come up with and put it into print.
I don't think either current version (using the word loosely for AToW) is good in there current form.
The difference is, I think the issues with AToW could be fixed to make it work, while all the problems I see with Destiny are intentional.
As to the "Quite a few gamers I know do not like number crunching because they want to role play not roll play". Your definition of Roleplay and Roll Play need to be a little more defined then "number crunching" for me to respond. Because I also know players that don't like number crunching, but some are talking about AToW/GURPS/Champions level number crunching, and other don't like to add (3+4=7).
I personally, like my Roleplaying around the level of Mechwarrior 2nd edition, but can handle slightly higher crunch.
AToW is to far to the number crunching, super crunch for me, and Destiny is way to rules light and campfire tales for me.


Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 21 April 2022, 06:40:03
I am going to disagree there. I don't think most RPG players want spreadsheets. They want to be able to build their character over a single session, and then jump in to playing. Which is what Destiny does.

D&D will always be geared towards new gamers, because they know they are the gateway game. I would not look at that as a negative. Destiny serves the purpose of being an effective pilot generator, and an RPG, which is why I say it is close to that middle ground.

I'm going to handle the D&D 5th here.
The problem with 5th is it it took all the years of trying to turn D&D from Chainmail to a true RPG, throw them out and instead turn the game into a family funtime casual game. And D&D "gateway game" status is a lot more overblown then people think. Truth is that very few of the player that I play with in any of my groups over the years started with D&D. I myself actually started Roleplaying in the Top Secret (Original) and MechWarrior: The BattleTech Role Playing Game (1st ed) RPG.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Elmoth on 21 April 2022, 08:02:14
I have no experience with either destiny or AToW mechanics myself, so can't comment on that front. I was contesting that people that do not like to centre on the math and long (numeric) character creation processes are casual roleplayers.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 21 April 2022, 11:05:09
Having played and ran D&D5e I would not put it in the same category as Destiny in terms of casual versus complex.  But that's all I'll say as even that feels like I'm too close to picking a fight I actually do not intend to.

AToW as much as I think it does many things better than MW2 I will grant does have too much math for the sake of math to it and it goes about certain things in a way that it does not have the frameworks to guide GMs, especially those new to the setting or GMing.

To be clear I think there is more good than bad and a revised edition just might get us there.  If not it'll at least show the way.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 21 April 2022, 18:05:14
AToW can definitely be made better, and I'm working on it (see my sig block).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Greatclub on 21 April 2022, 23:21:16
Is that the "all rogues all the time" RPG?  I might have played that once...  8)

An accurate description, but there is also the "band of blades" mod, which is 'all infantry all the time", and beam saber, which is basically gundum on a forged in the dark system. It is mostly the latter I'm considering.

There is no way I'm getting my crew into the current ATOW. Most wouldn't be willing to put in the effort to learn the system, and I'm not sure two could (multiple concussions each.)  Destiny is a maybe.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: StCptMara on 24 April 2022, 04:10:44

I don't even look at it as a true table top RPG, it's more like a theater of the mind game.


(bolded for emphasis): Theatre of the mind *are* true RPGs. They are not tactical simulations, true, but they are about the acting and immersion into your character. Stats exist to provide guidelines, but it is becoming the character that is the heart of an RPG. It is the telling of stories, the evoking of imagery that the true skill of a good GM. I have been playing and GMing RPGs for 25 years, and I have always done "Theatre of the mind," though we didn't call it that back in the day(the term didn't really exist until, what, a decade or so ago?). We called it, wait for it, "Role Playing" and "Story driven."
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 24 April 2022, 06:06:02
(bolded for emphasis): Theatre of the mind *are* true RPGs. They are not tactical simulations, true, but they are about the acting and immersion into your character. Stats exist to provide guidelines, but it is becoming the character that is the heart of an RPG. It is the telling of stories, the evoking of imagery that the true skill of a good GM. I have been playing and GMing RPGs for 25 years, and I have always done "Theatre of the mind," though we didn't call it that back in the day(the term didn't really exist until, what, a decade or so ago?). We called it, wait for it, "Role Playing" and "Story driven."

I like how you omitted the "table top" part of the commit to make your point.
I have been roleplaying for well over 30+ years (not going to give actual age) so using this as an I know better statement is not going to work with me, thats why I don't use it.
Their is a major difference between playing a role and playing a role playing game.
One is just called acting and the other is playing a game.
While "Theatre of the mind" may have been a bad choice of words, The reason why I don't think Destiny qualifies as a true "table top" RPG is that the focus is not on the characters but on telling the story.
In a true table top RPG, the focus in on the character and how the player decided to interact with the GM/NPCs and the other players.
In Destiny, the focus in on narrating a story with the characters just as pawns within the narrative.
For this to work you need every member of the group to have little to no interest in advancing their characters with the total groups interest overriding personal goals.
Destiny comes off as a chain campfire story with little to nothing in the way of structure.
I have played game of this sort multiple times in my life including other game in the Cue system line and they never end well.
even if you use the optional GM controlled version you just move to AToW light, with little in the way of substance and a extremely watered down character.
This is the same issues that sunk or is sinking games like Dragonlance Fifth Age, and to a lesser extent Shadowrun 6th world.
This is the issues with Destiny.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 24 April 2022, 07:03:39
I've played Amber, and even less structured games over the years.  Personally, I need a little more outlining how I should expect things to work in the game's world.  The game I cannot name sets up expectations that are 180 out from how BattleTech works.  The tweaks I'm making to AToW are trying to bring it closer to what we see at the other scales of BattleTech, and I daresay Victor Shaw's efforts with MW2e are at least going in a similar direction.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the oldest argument: should BattleTech's RPG be an RPG first, or part of BattleTech first.  I'm firmly in the latter camp.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: All4BigGuns on 01 June 2022, 00:35:02
Rather new to Battletech itself, and I haven't had a chance to actually play the RPG yet since I can't get hold of a physical copy, but from what I've read of the corebook PDF and from the LifePath character generation I did (which I always do first when I find a new RPG to help learn the system), I love it. I especially love that I can easily slot a mechwarrior character made in this into a BattleMech on the table in the other game. We really need this reprinted, as I doubt I'll ever get to play until I can get a physical copy or two.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 01 June 2022, 03:27:04
The pdf version is MUCH cheaper.  Any particular reason for the need for a hard copy?
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: FastConcentrate8 on 01 June 2022, 09:47:24
The pdf version is MUCH cheaper.  Any particular reason for the need for a hard copy?
I guess for collection reasons.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: pokefan548 on 01 June 2022, 09:48:44
I have it on PDF, but I can't imagine running it from there. I just work so much more intuitively with physical books.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 01 June 2022, 09:53:23
I have it on PDF, but I can't imagine running it from there. I just work so much more intuitively with physical books.

*nod*

For me PDFs are fine for on the spot of looking stuff up but if I really want to learn/digest a system, it's DTF or bust.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 01 June 2022, 18:15:01
Totally legit reason!  8)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 02 June 2022, 12:27:45
PDF for looking up, and print the key pages (single-sided) for large comparison capability?

I.e. instead of scrolling up and down on the same PDF, I can print out a few key pages and have those side-by-side.  Instead of needing a larger screen to compare different pages, you just need a larger flat surface.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 02 June 2022, 18:07:42
You begin to understand my love of the OG TacOps tables...  ^-^
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: StCptMara on 03 June 2022, 04:59:55
*nod*

For me PDFs are fine for on the spot of looking stuff up but if I really want to learn/digest a system, it's DTF or bust.

It is also generally faster to find what you need in DTF books then having to scroll page after page, and DTF never freezes up when you are looking because it needs to render a page with multiple layers..
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dr. Banzai on 03 June 2022, 05:53:44
It is also generally faster to find what you need in DTF books then having to scroll page after page, and DTF never freezes up when you are looking because it needs to render a page with multiple layers..
Ctrl + F

Also, if you set up your windows explorer correctly, searching in the folders for words can bring back results that are in the PDFs. (For example, typing McKenna in the windows search can show you all the PDFs that contain it.)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2022, 16:13:15
New AToW errata is up.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 06 June 2022, 18:35:21
Clearly you love us!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Grand_dm on 07 June 2022, 09:01:39
I hope there is a future. I mean at this point there is not even a POD available that I'm aware of. That is the easiest thing to format and upload to DriveThruRPG.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 07 June 2022, 11:09:43
I hope there is a future. I mean at this point there is not even a POD available that I'm aware of. That is the easiest thing to format and upload to DriveThruRPG.

The new errata makes note of a 3rd printing 2022.
Maybe this is an indicator that they plan to release a new printing this year.
That said, it would just be the same old busted RPG with the errata included.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 07 June 2022, 11:31:31
All other mechanical issues aside.
The main issue with ATOW is that it has to meet the requirements of two completely different groups.
Pure RPG players and Table top Boardgame players.
And the middle ground doesn't quite work for either.

Gonna agree and disagree

The problem here is that the RPG rules caters to the TableTop game in tbe first place.

And it shouldn't. CGL already has a game for the TTG. It's called BattleTech.  AToW is made even worse because it also tries to shoehorn in BattleTroops.

So, AToW is trying to be an RPG, a squad based combat game and a TableTop Wargame. It tries to be BattleTech and AeroTech and CityTech and BattleTroops and Succession Wars and so on and it does none of them well.

AToW should be an RPG...the game set at the personal scale of tbe BTU. Mech combat should be "out of scope"...a background element. Not the main or central or major focus it is in AToW. Sure, it is nice to plug your character into a Mech on the board, but all ATOW needs is a way to convert Gunnery and Piloting between the two. Even allowing for more advanced integration, you only need only seven skills and the phrase "Mech combat should take place using BattleTech". And that conversion coukd be as simple as "divide skill level by 2 and subtract the result from 7"

A BT RPG does not need to cater to the TTG. FASA tried. WK tried. FP tried. CGL tried. They all failed.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 07 June 2022, 13:16:49
Gonna agree and disagree

The problem here is that the RPG rules caters to the TableTop game in tbe first place.

And it shouldn't. CGL already has a game for the TTG. It's called BattleTech.  AToW is made even worse because it also tries to shoehorn in BattleTroops.

So, AToW is trying to be an RPG, a squad based combat game and a TableTop Wargame. It tries to be BattleTech and AeroTech and CityTech and BattleTroops and Succession Wars and so on and it does none of them well.

AToW should be an RPG...the game set at the personal scale of tbe BTU. Mech combat should be "out of scope"...a background element. Not the main or central or major focus it is in AToW. Sure, it is nice to plug your character into a Mech on the board, but all ATOW needs is a way to convert Gunnery and Piloting between the two. Even allowing for more advanced integration, you only need only seven skills and the phrase "Mech combat should take place using BattleTech". And that conversion coukd be as simple as "divide skill level by 2 and subtract the result from 7"

A BT RPG does not need to cater to the TTG. FASA tried. WK tried. FP tried. CGL tried. They all failed.

I completely agree that the main book should be an RPG first and a TTG never.
But a good RPG based Vehicle combat system in one of the expansions like the Mechwarrior companion, or some type of RPG vehicle book would be nice for those of us that don't want to pull out the TTG and waste our entire gaming session on one Mech combat would be nice.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 07 June 2022, 13:24:19
I think CGL is going in the right direction with Mechwarrior Destiny with abstract Mech/Vehicle combat without the need for maps and a quick resolution.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: pokefan548 on 07 June 2022, 14:09:31
I think CGL is going in the right direction with Mechwarrior Destiny with abstract Mech/Vehicle combat without the need for maps and a quick resolution.
Maybe from a very, very broad standpoint. In my experience, it breaks down hard outside of the most basic 'Mech-on-'Mech fights.

Anyways, I don't mind AToW doing so much. I do wish that, in some regards, it was a bit more confident in leaning on Classic and other BattleTech systems for larger-scale stuff, but there's a lot that can only be adequately handled with the degree of individual detail that AToW provides (at least as compared to the other BattleTech systems). My friends and I have actually been getting the urge to experiment with AToW squad combat to try out some smaller-scale, non-RPG combat.

That being said, would I mind if a lot of that stuff was moved to another book in exchange for AToW and AToWC's RPG stuff getting merged into a single book? No, not at all.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 07 June 2022, 16:03:56
Yeah that BattleTroops 2.0 stuff probably does need excised but at the same time I think there is a catch 22 situation going on here.

There is a certain element of being told to use a different book to resolve perhaps the biggest selling point of the setting, giant robots stomping on other giant robots, is a non-starter for too many people.

Add in even with the influx of new blood we've been getting the past few years, Battletech is still very much a niche and the RPG is a niche of this niche.

So the RPG to be viable has to integrate with Total Warfare/Alphastrike but be able to stand on it's own and still provide it's own independent resolution system for.  Otherwise it just simply won't attract enough people.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dahmin_Toran on 07 June 2022, 16:37:29
Maybe from a very, very broad standpoint. In my experience, it breaks down hard outside of the most basic 'Mech-on-'Mech fights.

I agree for the most part, but I find that you could use Abstract Mech/Vehicle combat in pretty much any Mechwarrior RPG (since all simply convert Piloting/Gunnery skills) by using the Abstract Aerospace Combat rules. You just substitute an aerial/space dogfight with Mechs or Tanks maneuvering for a better shooting position.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: pokefan548 on 07 June 2022, 17:01:29
I agree for the most part, but I find that you could use Abstract Mech/Vehicle combat in pretty much any Mechwarrior RPG (since all simply convert Piloting/Gunnery skills) by using the Abstract Aerospace Combat rules. You just substitute an aerial/space dogfight with Mechs or Tanks maneuvering for a better shooting position.
As someone with a partly rational, partly irrational hatred of the abstract aerospace combat rules, this approach displeases me.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 07 June 2022, 17:14:46
BattleTech's unique strength is the continuity from the RPG level all the way up to ISAW (even if flawed).  The RPG first vs. BT first argument has been going since MW1e.  And BT first is the side I'm on.  If RPG-ness first is your priority, you'll adapt some other system you prefer to the fluff of the universe.  TPTB had their priorities right with AToW, even if execution could have been better.  That other game is going in the completely wrong direction.  An abstract system that can't resolve to the TW level (and it doesn't... Assassins uber alles!) is worse than useless: it creates false expectations in players that ought to enjoy the whole enchilada.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 07 June 2022, 18:37:42
BattleTech's unique strength is the continuity from the RPG level all the way up to ISAW (even if flawed).  The RPG first vs. BT first argument has been going since MW1e.  And BT first is the side I'm on.  If RPG-ness first is your priority, you'll adapt some other system you prefer to the fluff of the universe.  TPTB had their priorities right with AToW, even if execution could have been better.  That other game is going in the completely wrong direction.  An abstract system that can't resolve to the TW level (and it doesn't... Assassins uber alles!) is worse than useless: it creates false expectations in players that ought to enjoy the whole enchilada.

The thing for me is I come to battletech from a RPG background and not a TTG one.
And looking back on the MW RPGs we have gotten, I have to say 2nd was the closest we got to an even decent RPG and that was mostly because they swiped a good chunk of the rules from Shadowrun. The problem with linking the RPG to close to the TTG is as monbvol stated " Battletech is still very much a niche and the RPG is a niche of this niche."
But where we differ is that coming from the RPG side of things forcing me or my players to put out a boardgame to run an essential part of the universe, and wasting a whole session or more on it is a major turnoff. When most if not all other RPGs can handle most forms of combat 15-30 minutes.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 07 June 2022, 18:50:58
Again, BT is about the whole enchilada.  Why play an RPG about star-spanning empires if you're not going to span the stars?  Why play an RPG about 'mechs without 'mechs?? ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Col Toda on 08 June 2022, 03:56:01
If the re relased ATOW  with a priority based system attribites : skills : traits for a faster streamlined point based  character creation system they would be far better off than the mess that is Destiny. 
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 08 June 2022, 04:25:41
Again, BT is about the whole enchilada.  Why play an RPG about star-spanning empires if you're not going to span the stars?  Why play an RPG about 'mechs without 'mechs?? ???

One, the BTU is about the BTU not just Mechs.
Two, no-one every said that they should get rid of Mechs in the RPG.
The two stances that have been debating are Talen5000's that BattleMech combat should be left to the TTG and not shoehorned into the RPGs.
Or my stance that the Vehicle portion of the game should be a more roleplaying experience and less of a boardgame that derails and takes over an RPG session.
The issues is in most versions of the game, AToW included, the game tries to hard to be just a pilot simulator for the TTG and less about actually being an RPG.
When a typical 4 hour RPG session turns into 30 min of roleplaying and 3.5 + hours of board gaming, the game is failing as an RPG.
AToW is a great example as the basic RPG game mechanics take up about 10 pgs. and the combat rule take up 29 pgs., but the Tactical combat rules take up 26 pgs.
I mean the rules just for Vehicle combat take up 44% of the rules in the book and it for the most part just amounts to how to play the TTG with some fluff info and on how to handle a PC getting hit by a Mech weapon.
Look, I know that both 2nd and 3rd did the same thing to a point, but both of those version put that information in a separate book from the core rules.
Overall, the issues with the MechWarrior RPGs in general is, they never truly setout to be RPGs as that has never seemed to be TPTBs goal.
They are at their core Pilot/soldier generators for the TTG, with some fluff added to make them seem like an RPG.

When the AToW core book has
32 pages of short stories (wasted space)
9 pages of basic rules
31 pages of combat rule
25 pages of table top integration rule requiring at minimum two other board games (Battletech/Aerotech)
and a whopping 71 pages of equipment
even the GM section is 10 pages of RPG info and 41 pages of fluff.
As for extremely overcomplicated lifepath character creation system you are looking at 102 pages with 47 of those pages just being Lifepaths and how to use them.
you have to ask yourself.
Who was this game written for?
There is a reason that Mechwarrior did not make my top 5 RPGs or an Honorable Mention.

Lets look at my favorite RPG Star Wars D6 for an example
around 12 pages of short stories
12 pages of basic rules
11 pages of combat rule
28 pages of fully RPG integrated Vehicle/Space combat rules covering all aspects of Vehicle/Space combat without the need for other books or TTGs
25 pages of equipment
GM section is 20 pages of RPG info and 13 pages of fluff.
The character creation system is around 54 pages with 19 of those pages being the core Templates.


Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 08 June 2022, 17:47:11
And Star Wars isn't my cup of tea either.  We have different tastes in RPGs, and that's to be expected.  But I think TPTB got THEIR RPG right.  Sure, it's a pilot generator at its core.  OK.  But it certainly has enough beyond that to make a range of fully fleshed out characters, and the life path method drives that home in a way few other RPGs even come close to.  I truly enjoy character creation with AToW.  Even when it's generating the 100+ members of a unit.  All those flex points are how you differentiate the troops.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Bedwyr on 08 June 2022, 17:55:08
Apologies for interrupting guys. I was just wondering offhand if you knew of a source of Star Wars RPG dice? They're really hard to find.


Sorry sorry and continue the discussion.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 08 June 2022, 18:05:19
Apologies for interrupting guys. I was just wondering offhand if you knew of a source of Star Wars RPG dice? They're really hard to find.


Sorry sorry and continue the discussion.

Star Wars RPG dice?
Are you talking about FFG Star Wars?
If so look up Edge-Studios.net they have the publishing license, but I can't find a store for them.
I would go to your local game store and see if they can order it or get it off eBay. (its Not Cheap)
Another option is to pick up one of the Starter boxes as they each come with a pack of dice.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 08 June 2022, 18:15:23
And Star Wars isn't my cup of tea either.  We have different tastes in RPGs, and that's to be expected.  But I think TPTB got THEIR RPG right.  Sure, it's a pilot generator at its core.  OK.  But it certainly has enough beyond that to make a range of fully fleshed out characters, and the life path method drives that home in a way few other RPGs even come close to.  I truly enjoy character creation with AToW.  Even when it's generating the 100+ members of a unit.  All those flex points are how you differentiate the troops.

While I understand that SW is not everyone's "cup of tea" it was and still is a well received RPG. The point I was making is that with far less wasted space WEG made a far superior product and had the same (or more) flexibility with a far simpler and smaller page count set of rules.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 08 June 2022, 18:37:44
We've talked extensively before, and I know we share a contempt for fiction in rulebooks.  Outside of that, I think we have different opinions of what constitutes "wasted space".
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 08 June 2022, 20:11:16
One game that nicely mixed RPG and tabletop was Iron Kingdoms, for Warmachine.  The Hit point layout for the RPG was identical to the one used on the tabletop miniatures game.  You could literally take your tabletop opponents and put them into an RPG session, and vice versa, with nearly no changes needed.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 09 June 2022, 03:15:16
We've talked extensively before, and I know we share a contempt for fiction in rulebooks.  Outside of that, I think we have different opinions of what constitutes "wasted space".

My definition of wasted space it using 20+ pages to add a thin cover over the TTG that extends an already overly long diversion for the RPG or 47 pages  of templates that don't even provide a half finished character.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 09 June 2022, 03:36:33
I think the life paths get much further down that road, but now I'm repeating myself.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: idea weenie on 09 June 2022, 14:12:00
I think the life paths get much further down that road, but now I'm repeating myself.

How about separating the lifepaths into their own book, and instead going with a few very generic lifepaths in the main book?  One for rough types of background (poor, middle-class, luxury), a small variation depending on the House or Periphery nation, and giving 3-4 options (instead of the 2d10 tables).  Each lifepath would take up half a page total, meaning the total size for the lifepath section is lower (3 paths per stage, then half a page of location-based options).  Total size for all four stages would be 8 pages.

You could then have a separate book with the full lifepath options, giving much more variety for character creation.  These would be more efficient in the XP cost vs skill pts acquired, but more locked in on your options.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 09 June 2022, 18:00:11
2d10 tables?  I think you're mixing your editions there...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Greatclub on 10 June 2022, 01:09:21
One game that nicely mixed RPG and tabletop was Iron Kingdoms, for Warmachine.  The Hit point layout for the RPG was identical to the one used on the tabletop miniatures game.  You could literally take your tabletop opponents and put them into an RPG session, and vice versa, with nearly no changes needed.

As much as that's a game I wish I got a chance to play...

"infantry" and "mecha" are far closer in that universe than they ever will be for battletech. Also, it's a wargame with some RPG stuff tacked on.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: red_tok on 10 June 2022, 05:20:13
In my mind, ATOW isn't as much an RPG as it is a personal scale wargame. It would have been interesting to see what could have been if it had been designed by RPG writers but that's neither here nor there.

If you want a Mechwarrior creator/simulator or an extra layer to your BT gameplay, I think a revised edition could make the core of ATOW more playable. Outsource it to Daryk and you're already most of the way there!

On the other hand, I can't ever see myself running ATOW as an RPG. There are so many disparate parts and bespoke rules, although making it easier to refer to rules would make this easier to handle. I'm all for complexity if it adds something to the game but I can't see that here. Granted, I haven't actually run the game because just trying to explain the rules has driven all my friends insane  :))

They were definitely on the right track with the lifepath system though. If you are playing a BT RPG then the setting is important and it's important to integrate your character into it. I've been looking at adapting them for a slightly less insane byzantine system, but that's more work than I can justify doing atm.

I've seen references to Traveller and other systems being adapted for BT, but has anyone attempted to integrate ATOW with a different system? Basically using the best parts of each ruleset.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 10 June 2022, 05:34:04
My Mechwarrior 2nd Ed revision is basically MW2 with the best parts of 3rd an AToW.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 10 June 2022, 16:54:18
Thanks for the vote of confidence Red_Tok, but that's a minimum of two years away, assuming the Navy turns down my retirement waiver request...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 29 June 2022, 23:20:24
I completely agree that the main book should be an RPG first and a TTG never.
But a good RPG based Vehicle combat system in one of the expansions like the Mechwarrior companion, or some type of RPG vehicle book would be nice for those of us that don't want to pull out the TTG and waste our entire gaming session on one Mech combat would be nice.

Given the nature of BT, a decent RPG based vehicular combat system should be in the core RPG books.

But that doesn't change the issue that Mech scale combat should be seen as largely out of bounds for an RPG. There should indeed be a system to let you use your character within a BT TTG, but if you are going to do that then the game should simply tell you to use the boardgame.

What does the RPG character need?
Gunnery skills and piloting skills likely need a conversion mechanic so the character can use the TTG modifiers.
Initiative becomes the appropriate Tactics skill. Thats RPG based.
Rolls to avoid shutdowns and ammo explosions? Technician or Computer skills. Again, RPG based but a conversion system to translate the Target Numbers to the RPG.
Other skills? Comms and Sensors. Again, RPG based.
Morale check? Leadership

And so on

That's not a lot of room needed, at least for a basic system. Most skills van be used as RPG skills, even on a TTG setting

Going the other way? Mech to person? The person dies. You get hit with a tank shell, you don't need to convert damage.

The RPG should be just that....an RPG. And trying to shoehorn battlefield and tactical combat and Mechs and all that has never worked.Trying to do so is a big reason why BT RPGs don't work that well. If you want  to play an RPG, you aren't likely to want to play a TTG. Even something as basic as a Trial of Grievance can sideline the entire rest of the party for an entire session or two.

A BT RPG needs a decent RPG based vehicular combat system. But it should also stay away from Mechs and Mech scale systems. That should be left to the TTG. Characters have very little chance of combatting such units even under ideal situations and such elements are best left to the background and existing TTG.

[Yes, we see miracles happen in the novels....but the authors cheat]
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Talen5000 on 29 June 2022, 23:43:30
How about separating the lifepaths into their own book, and instead going with a few very generic lifepaths in the main book?  One for rough types of background (poor, middle-class, luxury), a small variation depending on the House or Periphery nation, and giving 3-4 options (instead of the 2d10 tables).  Each lifepath would take up half a page total, meaning the total size for the lifepath section is lower (3 paths per stage, then half a page of location-based options).  Total size for all four stages would be 8 pages.

You could then have a separate book with the full lifepath options, giving much more variety for character creation.  These would be more efficient in the XP cost vs skill pts acquired, but more locked in on your options.

The Lifepath system, put simply, does not work for BattleTech.

You have several time periods, multiple factions, multiple tech bases, and a game which allows you to roleplay everything from a Stone Age nomad up to an interstellar duke.

There are no current restrictions that would make a LifePath system work.

As a result, the system is too complex, too cumbersome and...most damning of all...too lengthy, too costly in page count.

As it is, any chargen system will need 15-20 pages simply to define the major backgrounds....Era, Faction, House/Clan, Region/Caste...on top of defining stats, attributes, skills and traits even if you used a points based system.

Which is an argument for removing or limiting some of those structures in character generation. But a LifePath system just isn't viable.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 30 June 2022, 03:12:27
What do you mean by "restrictions" to "make it work"? ??? 
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dr. Banzai on 30 June 2022, 07:37:30
The Lifepath system, put simply, does not work for BattleTech.

You have several time periods, multiple factions, multiple tech bases, and a game which allows you to roleplay everything from a Stone Age nomad up to an interstellar duke.

There are no current restrictions that would make a LifePath system work.

As a result, the system is too complex, too cumbersome and...most damning of all...too lengthy, too costly in page count.

As it is, any chargen system will need 15-20 pages simply to define the major backgrounds....Era, Faction, House/Clan, Region/Caste...on top of defining stats, attributes, skills and traits even if you used a points based system.

Which is an argument for removing or limiting some of those structures in character generation. But a LifePath system just isn't viable.
Unless you like it, then it's pretty fun.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 30 June 2022, 09:36:38
One of the things I point out now and again is the fact that it is going to be a turn off to direct players to a whole separate book/system for a pretty fundamental part of the universe/game.

As far as Life Paths, yeah if you insist on a lot of detail/uniqueness they are going to be a problem.  The Life Modules of AToW are not a terrible compromise.  Especially for someone like me who is willing to accept that there are going to be certain universal truths about any character, from any era, and any tech base.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: pokefan548 on 30 June 2022, 11:21:54
I, for one, like the life path system well enough- though I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed if it was just a bit more flexible.
But then, you can always just talk over a custom life path with its own perks and let your GM accept or deny it. Some handwaving required, but it can work.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 30 June 2022, 17:14:03
Or write your own modules (see my sig block for a few of those)...  8)
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 July 2022, 00:27:11
I'm going to come strait out and say the life path system as presented in 3rd edition was far better then the one we got in 4th (AToW)
It was concise/mostly complete/engaging/and most important of all immersive. As you went through it you felt like you where your character living through his/her early life.
Did it have its problems, yes.
1. The random events were way to random.
2. The skill system was balanced at the low end.
3. There were to many pointless paths created to just fill page count.

4th on the other hand is to dependent on point totals that don't even matter in the end because they are refunded most of the time/far from complete/just number crunching (not engaging)/and so generic that its like doing math homework and not at all immersive.

And while I agree wholeheartedly with everything here, these are not my words, they are the responses I have gotten from 98% of the players that I have tried to run the game for and the last 2% lost interest after they found they when through all the hassle of character creation for a mediocre character. I have said it before, 4th is not a bad game in its core mechanics but it fails at the most crucial part of a RPG, It's character creation system is horrid. And since that is the first (and for some last) part of an RPG that your players will experience the game has already put its first foot in the grave.
And I know some GMs (not going to name names) will say things like just make the character for them/use this or that aid/etc. to them I say at least to me and my players creating their character is one of the most important parts of playing an RPG.

The fact is 4th edition in a turnoff for most players I know as soon as they start character creation.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2022, 03:30:54
It's OK... you can say my name...  8)

As monbvol said, the way more flexibility was put in was a compromise.  One I'm OK with.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 July 2022, 04:22:49
It's OK... you can say my name...  8)

As monbvol said, the way more flexibility was put in was a compromise.  One I'm OK with.
"Say my name, say my name"
And I would be ok with more flexibility if the system was less time consuming.
But when it takes hours to get to that point and the character is still less then 55% done it's a real turnoff.
3rd may have had its flaws but at least it took a decent amount of time and when you were done with the life paths you had a close to complete character that just needed some personal touches.
The issues with 4th is its math for math sake design. I get that the point system was to balance out all characters to each other, but to me that is just not really doable in a one points pool for all skills/attributes/traits system.
Strength and Own Battlemech are never going to be equal, just like Singing and Small Arms never will to a lesser existent.
The underling one pool points system is the core of the issues with character creation system using the life paths. It can work fine for just the point build system, I still don't like it, but at least there you are not getting wasted point that you have to reassign.
Overall, I don't think AToW could be fixed to make it playable to the average RPG player without a major overhaul and I doubt CGL are willing to put to much effort into it past a proof read reprint.
So what is "The future of "A Time of War"" IMHO.
Reprint then back to obscurity.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 01 July 2022, 09:39:07
See I wonder what the difference between my group and yours is because even before I made Spreadsheet aides and we had to do Life Modules in AToW by hand my group was way more than 55% complete even by the two hour mark.

Though I will caveat that with they still prefer Point Buy and I can understand with how daunting Life Modules can be, as presented the Life Modules in AToW still are not ideal.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 July 2022, 17:50:31
See I wonder what the difference between my group and yours is because even before I made Spreadsheet aides and we had to do Life Modules in AToW by hand my group was way more than 55% complete even by the two hour mark.

Though I will caveat that with they still prefer Point Buy and I can understand with how daunting Life Modules can be, as presented the Life Modules in AToW still are not ideal.

The first group was 6 people new to the game (AToW and Battletech). When it took over an hour (About an hour and 36 minutes) for them to get through just the lifepaths and find out that only about 48-56% (depending on the paths they picked) points they had already spent counted and the rest where refunded they all decided to quit and play a different game (Legend of the Five Rings if I remember correctly).

The second group was 4 players (new to AToW but had played MW2)how finished character creation begrudgingly taking about 2 and a half hours to fully complete their characters. That group lasted about 2 sessions with most of the players not happy with the skills of the PCs and a players was killed (during mech combat (TTG)) so they decided they were not interested in going through the Character Creation system again. We switched back to Mechwarrior 2.

the thirds group was 3 players (new to AToW but had played MW2 and MW3) they spent 15 minutes working on the lifepaths before they decided they wanted to play something else. (We switched to Shadowrun 3rd edition)

Just to be clear none of the players (ok maybe one) thought the system was unassailable or impossible to understand, they all just though it was way more time and work then it was worth for the PCs you got out of it.
So all the groups were turned off by the character creation system.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 01 July 2022, 20:10:05
Hmmm.  My group had a fair bit of experience with MW3ed at the time.  D&D 3-3.5(can't remember if 4th was out or in our hands yet), Pathfinder, World of Darkness, Star Wars d6, and Rifts for not Battletech systems.

Of those I'd say Rifts probably actually helped condition us for AToW the most as that character creation system could get nuts real easy with all the stupid little things you'd have to keep track of and flip back and forth for.  I'm to this day convinced the rules for Rifts are only at best 80% complete and despite all those holes and how difficult it is to look stuff up is still looked upon more favorably than it deserves for the sheer insanity we got up to despite it.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 July 2022, 21:23:09
Hmmm.  My group had a fair bit of experience with MW3ed at the time.  D&D 3-3.5(can't remember if 4th was out or in our hands yet), Pathfinder, World of Darkness, Star Wars d6, and Rifts for not Battletech systems.

Of those I'd say Rifts probably actually helped condition us for AToW the most as that character creation system could get nuts real easy with all the stupid little things you'd have to keep track of and flip back and forth for.  I'm to this day convinced the rules for Rifts are only at best 80% complete and despite all those holes and how difficult it is to look stuff up is still looked upon more favorably than it deserves for the sheer insanity we got up to despite it.

I never played Rifts proper, but did play the Robotech (1 and Shadow Chronicles) version of the game. It was not all that hard to make a character in the system but the Rifts Power creep was strong.

Never been a fan of AD&D (All versions) at all. Loved Mystara BECMI and Dragonlances' story though.

Pathfinder was just AD&D 3.8 to me so I never really got into it.

World of Darkness Pre-Armageddon Werewolf and Vampire to a lesser existent were fun. The new stuff is just a joke.

Star Wars d6 has always been one of my favorite game systems. WEG out did themselves with that one. D6 really takes to heart my opinion that "the game should be made to fit the setting not the other way around".

Other games my group and I have played and loved include Renegade Legion (FASA Legionnaire), Legends of the Five Rings (3rd-4th edition), GURPS (3rd-4th), Shatterzone, Traveller: The New Era, Twilight 2000 (2.2), and 7th Sea (not the new one).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 July 2022, 21:45:13
If my opinion mattered, the RPG needs a complete rewrite.
While the CGL seems to be good at TTGs they have a fairly bad track record with RPGs.
Overall for me to even think about supporting a new or revised game they would have to:
1. Avoid the pitfall of Shadowrun 6th and other newer games and not go for oversimplified mush with "MacGuffin" mechanic. (Tags, Edge for everything, Special dice, Etc.)
2. Divorce Skills/Attributes/Traits from a single point system.
3. Either make lifepath character creation immersive or just get rid of it.
4. Bring the math down to a manageable level. Players want to make a character not do math homework.
5. Come up with a Vehicle combat system that is immersive, quick and doesn't detract from the RPG with a whole new system to learn outside of the RPG.
6. Stop wasting page count with a 3-4 page story every chapter. I buy a RPG book to play a game not to read a novel.
Since none of this is likely to happen the chances of me playing an RPG in the BTU outside of MW2 are pretty low.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2022, 21:49:45
You know I'm 100% with you on #6!  :thumbsup:

As for the rest, that's not even remotely how I'd introduce the system to new players.  I do the heavy lifting the first few times (which isn't that heavy with my spreadsheet and experience with it), and let them tweak to their heart's content.  That seems to work for both them and me.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 July 2022, 22:06:27
You know I'm 100% with you on #6!  :thumbsup:

As for the rest, that's not even remotely how I'd introduce the system to new players.  I do the heavy lifting the first few times (which isn't that heavy with my spreadsheet and experience with it), and let them tweak to their heart's content.  That seems to work for both them and me.

While that may work for you and your players, I will quote one of my players about AToW "If the system requires outside assistance or someone to make the character for you it has already failed"
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2022, 22:23:54
I disagree, but you knew that already.  Most people I know (including me) had help making characters for D&D back in the day, at least the first time.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: monbvol on 01 July 2022, 22:47:56
For my experience I will say there are those no matter the system that will need help of some sort or that the existence of computerized aides should not be counted against the system but there is without a doubt a point past where such help becomes a must have.

AToW I can admit is close to that line but from what I have observed with my group it is not past the point where it should count against the system if an aide exists or help is asked for when it comes to character creation.

Battletech at it's heart is a crunchy, number intensive game, and any RPG made to fit in with this is almost certainly going to be too.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2022, 22:53:56
Agreed!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 July 2022, 22:55:37
The funny thing here is that both Traveller: The New Era and Twilight 2000 (2.2) use a life path system that is 100% better then AToW and takes less then half as long to make characters in.

Example from Twilight 2000 (2.2):
ATTRIBUTES
Random Generation: In this method, each attribute is determined by rolling 2D6-2 (re-roll any roll that would result in a O attribute score). This gives a range of from 1 to 10 for each attribute.
Allocation: Players who choose the allocation method have a total of 32 points to be distributed among their attributes in any com-bination they wish. No attribute may have a value of O or more than-10.

Background Skills: Choose 4 skills at level 1
Secondary Activities: 2 per term see Term for levels

Undergraduate University
Entry Requirement: Education 5+
Skills: Total skill levels equal to character's Education attribute from any combination of the following, but no more than level 3 in any one skill:
•   Biology
•   Chemistry
•   Construction
•   Computer
•   Geology
•   Instruction
•   Language
•   Metallurgy
•   Meteorology
•   Excavation
•   Persuasion
Contacts: One, either academic or journalist.
Special: May elect to join ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps), NROTC or AFROTR (the naval and air force equivalents). If so, add Leadership: 1 in place of any two skill levels above. The next career choice must include either entry into the appropriate branch of the regular armed forces or enrollment in the reserves in lieu of a second activity.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 July 2022, 23:05:35
For my experience I will say there are those no matter the system that will need help of some sort or that the existence of computerized aides should not be counted against the system but there is without a doubt a point past where such help becomes a must have.

AToW I can admit is close to that line but from what I have observed with my group it is not past the point where it should count against the system if an aide exists or help is asked for when it comes to character creation.

Battletech at it's heart is a crunchy, number intensive game, and any RPG made to fit in with this is almost certainly going to be too.

Where I see AToW as way past that line.
As for the last comment, Just because a Table Top Game based on the setting is heavy on number crunching does not in and of its self excuse the RPG for the same setting for be so.

A great example of this is Renegade Legion (FASA Legionnaire).
That setting has some of the most number crunching Table Top Games FASA ever made (Prefect, Interceptor, Leviathan) but Legionnaire manages to keep a MW2 level of complexity and has a highly functional RPG based Vehicle combat system that both captures the feel of Interceptor and Centurion without taking the players out of the game or bogging down the session with having to take out the TTG if you don't want to.
Add to this that the system takes up just 5 pages of the book and includes PC damage.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 July 2022, 00:54:57
I disagree, but you knew that already.  Most people I know (including me) had help making characters for D&D back in the day, at least the first time.

I'm going to say this response is way out in left field from the issues with AToW.
There is a major difference between a GM/DM helping a Player through character creation or using HeroLab then needed a spreadsheet just to make character creation doable without number crunching for over an hour. And then you realizing that all that work just got you to the point were you refund at least half of that to redistribute it again.
Not to mention the fact that keeps getting ignores: more then 2,400+ of the points you spend have to be on Attributes just to get you to human average. (So almost half)

5,000 points seems like a lot until you realize that just having
1. Human average attributes cost (2,400) points, and most of the careers require at least two of them to be over that amount for MechWarrior being DEX/RFL both at 4 so an extra 200 points. Cost: 2,600 points.
2. A medium Mech that you own (pretty much a requirement for Merc campaigns) cost: 600 points.
3. Having some rank other then lowly trooper cost: 300+ points.
4. Minimum acceptable skill as a MechWarrior: 4/4 and will say at least 3 levels in computer cost: 320 points
So you are looking at  just to meet minimums a cost  3,820 points or over 75% of the point total.
And the funny thing is this doesn't even make you good it just makes you average.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: pokefan548 on 02 July 2022, 01:39:43
And the funny thing is this doesn't even make you good it just makes you average.
It's almost like most people fall within a standard deviation of the average, with a small pool of more specialized skills and attributes.

Respectfully, if you want to play an exceptional MechWarrior right out of the gate, go play Destiny. To me, A Time of War, at least starting with 20-something year old no-bonuses starting characters, starts off about the people who will become exceptional MechWarriors. Where Destiny leans into the plot-armored pulp heroes of the BattleTech novels, A Time of War focuses on the oft-unsung poor bastards who are trying to make it in a universe that shows them no special favor.

Now, granted, there are a couple ways to get around this. For one, you could start with some bonus XP to help you bump your ratings. The other option is min-maxing, which AToW has in spades. I'm sure we've all seen our share of quadruple-amputee social butterflies with deep pockets and a lucrative passive income being carried around on an Elemental's back like C3PO being carried by Chewbaca.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 July 2022, 02:32:15
It's almost like most people fall within a standard deviation of the average, with a small pool of more specialized skills and attributes.

Respectfully, if you want to play an exceptional MechWarrior right out of the gate, go play Destiny. To me, A Time of War, at least starting with 20-something year old no-bonuses starting characters, starts off about the people who will become exceptional MechWarriors. Where Destiny leans into the plot-armored pulp heroes of the BattleTech novels, A Time of War focuses on the oft-unsung poor bastards who are trying to make it in a universe that shows them no special favor.

Now, granted, there are a couple ways to get around this. For one, you could start with some bonus XP to help you bump your ratings. The other option is min-maxing, which AToW has in spades. I'm sure we've all seen our share of quadruple-amputee social butterflies with deep pockets and a lucrative passive income being carried around on an Elemental's back like C3PO being carried by Chewbaca.

Why would anyone want to play joe average?
There is a reason almost every PC in most games are a step or two above the average joe.
The idea of Role-playing is to be the heroes of the story not the background characters that are never even named.
If you want to be joe average then why even have a Character Creation system, just have everyone pick a generic character template.
As for the "20-something year old no-bonuses starting characters" that you just spent up to 2 hours making, why would anyone want to play this or waste the time making it?
"A Time of War focuses on the oft-unsung poor bastards who are trying to make it in a universe that shows them no special favor." So a PC that is nothing more then the normal NPCs stat block found in the GM section in back of most RPG books?

By the way, Destiny is bad outside of a ok attempt at a RPG vehicle combat system.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2022, 06:03:56
I'll disagree on the vehicle combat system for the game I can't name and stop there.

As for playing "Joe average" characters, it's the low fantasy vs. high fantasy thing.  I prefer the grittier end of the business, and seriously: there's a lot more to "Joe average" than people give him credit for.  THAT's the fun thing for me.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Dr. Banzai on 02 July 2022, 08:46:46
You are going through Stage 4 multiple times to build concrete characters, right? If you stop at twenty years old and expect a character like Kai Allard-Liao or Phelan Kell, you're going to be disappointed. Just like if you play D&D and expect your 1st level wizard to be just like Elminster, Raistlin, or Mordenkainen...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2022, 10:34:12
I aboslutely do that for the older characters.  One does not command a merc unit right out of school anywhere other than a novel...
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 July 2022, 16:33:32
You are going through Stage 4 multiple times to build concrete characters, right? If you stop at twenty years old and expect a character like Kai Allard-Liao or Phelan Kell, you're going to be disappointed. Just like if you play D&D and expect your 1st level wizard to be just like Elminster, Raistlin, or Mordenkainen...

There is a difference between generic MechWarrior #3 (Which is what the game tends to make) in a lance and the Lance commander. It's not a problem of not making Kai Allard-Liao the Champion of Solaris, it's the problem of not being able to make Kai Allard-Liao the new recruit. Its not about having superpowered uber experienced PCs out the gate even in D&D, it's about the PCs being a step or two above the average low level stat block in the back of the book which their not most of the time in a AToW.

As for the "going through Stage 4 multiple times", you do realize that every time you go through the "TOUR OF DUTY" Life path after the first you lose 275 points of the 800 points spent? The point I was trying to make is even if you use the straight Point Buy system you are hard pressed to make a better then average PC. Now the AToW companion fixes this issue somewhat with the generic random chart, but the core game leaves a lot to be desired in that aspect.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 July 2022, 16:34:56
I aboslutely do that for the older characters.  One does not command a merc unit right out of school anywhere other than a novel...

See last post for this one.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 July 2022, 16:46:36
I'll disagree on the vehicle combat system for the game I can't name and stop there.

I was in no way saying it's a good system, just that it was an attempt in the right direction for a RPG vehicle combat system.  :-\
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2022, 16:49:41
I try to avoid repeating Stage 4 modules (other than Civilian Job) for that very reason.

The classic generic stat block is a 4 gunner/5 pilot.  Right out of the gate, it's trivial to achieve 3/3, even with AToW.  If that's not sufficiently "above average", I don't know what yard stick you're using.

Glad we're at least somewhat aligned on the newer system.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 July 2022, 17:49:09
I try to avoid repeating Stage 4 modules (other than Civilian Job) for that very reason.

The classic generic stat block is a 4 gunner/5 pilot.  Right out of the gate, it's trivial to achieve 3/3, even with AToW.  If that's not sufficiently "above average", I don't know what yard stick you're using.

Glad we're at least somewhat aligned on the newer system.

I would not say 3/3 is trivial to achieve right out of the gate with AToWs Lifepath system. It can be achieved with the point buy system fairly easily but at the cost of immersion.
The point I am trying to make is that the Lifepath system is just a thinly veiled outline to put over top of the Point Buy system that adds penalties for make a character that falls outside the lines and only uses about 45-50% of the points. The Lifepath system is not a Character creation system, it's an add-on to the Point Buy system nothing more and the penalties make it even less useful then the Point Buy system. If they want it to be an outline then we don't need all the bells and whistles, so just make suggestions and leave the points to the players. If they want it to be a Character creation system, beef-up the points it gives and use about 75-85% of the points. don't give use Fit +5 points when it takes 200 points.

My problem with the Point Buy system comes from the fact that they value everything using the same point pool and have this obsession for multiples of 100 with everything other then skills.  You can't "ever" convince me that having the Rank of "MechWarrior/Pilot: 500 points per pg. 124" is the same as having a "Medium Mech: 500 points per pg. 129" or that having a "Light Mech: 300 points per pg. 129" is the same as having "Fast Learner: 300 points per pg. 117".
Overall the point system it completely out of wack.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2022, 19:01:07
That's down to taste, I think.  Your examples at least all make sense to me if the GM applies the setting in a certain way.  Rank only has meaning in certain situations.  'Mechs only have meaning in certain situations, and yes, Fast Learner only makes sense if you spend a lot on skills.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 July 2022, 19:20:27
That's down to taste, I think.  Your examples at least all make sense to me if the GM applies the setting in a certain way.  Rank only has meaning in certain situations.  'Mechs only have meaning in certain situations, and yes, Fast Learner only makes sense if you spend a lot on skills.

"Rank only has meaning in certain situations". And yet, Rank is a requirement of the MechWarrior Field.
"Mechs only have meaning in certain situations". And yet, the most common PC group in the game requires them.
"Fast Learner only makes sense if you spend a lot on skills" And yet, it effects all skills in the game from start to finish.

Don't get me wrong on the last one as I am not a fan of "Fast Learner"
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 02 July 2022, 19:49:19
I can't think of any combination of modules that forces you to take Fast Learner if you don't want it.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 July 2022, 23:26:41
I can't think of any combination of modules that forces you to take Fast Learner if you don't want it.

What does that have to do with the cost?  ???
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2022, 04:34:39
It means you don't have to buy it if you don't like it.  I look at it this way: you can spend that 300 XP on having a wider variety of skills than most people, or you could spend it on an Attribute (raising it from 4 to 7) to be one better at a smaller variety of related skills.  Or you spend it on other things your GM requires (Rank, 'mech, etc.).
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 06:21:01
It means you don't have to buy it if you don't like it.  I look at it this way: you can spend that 300 XP on having a wider variety of skills than most people, or you could spend it on an Attribute (raising it from 4 to 7) to be one better at a smaller variety of related skills.  Or you spend it on other things your GM requires (Rank, 'mech, etc.).

The point was not that it cost to much or not enough. The points are;
1. That Attributes, Traits, and Skill should not uses the same point pool as they are not even close to comparable and so could never truly be balanced with the set number tiers they want to use.
2. The Traits are nowhere near balanced for their point totals, and again the idea of 100 point tiers is a joke, I mean Traits that just add a situational +1 should cost no more then 30 points (the cost of a level 1 skill).
3. You shouldn't have to spend almost half (48%) of your total points just to have average human Attributes, Attributes should start at human average.
And many more issues but there is no point since the PTB are not going to put any effort into the game.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2022, 06:44:06
They're doing a reprint this year, though.  I wouldn't call it dead yet...  ;)

And they've always had trouble with situational bonuses, across all their systems (Shadowrun et al. included).

Ultimately, even if you use a prioirity system, Attributes, Traits and Skills ARE in the same point pool.  AToW at least makes it explicit so you can see it more clearly.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 08:08:31
They're doing a reprint this year, though.  I wouldn't call it dead yet...  ;)

And they've always had trouble with situational bonuses, across all their systems (Shadowrun et al. included).

Ultimately, even if you use a priority system, Attributes, Traits and Skills ARE in the same point pool.  AToW at least makes it explicit so you can see it more clearly.

I was not saying they were going to abandon it, I was saying they are just going to reprint it with maybe a few error fixes.

And the last comment I was expecting.
No, the priority system does not truly put the Attributes, Traits Advantages and Skills in the same point pool.
Make that statement show a lack of understanding of the priority system.

First, you can choose to have two level 4 priorities and either 1 level 2 or 2 level ones, which for humans gets you some pretty good stats. Flexible priorities Pg. 15 MechWarrior Corebook.

Second, assigning a level 0 priority to Vehicle is the same as assigning 200 to 800 points in Vehicle in AToW without spending the 200 points to own the vehicle. Character Vehicles Pg.11 MechWarrior Companion.

Third, the minimum attributes you can get by assigning level 0 priority to Attributes is already human norm.

Fourth, the tiers of the priority levels are balanced within the game not between categories. Priority Level 2 skills are not balanced with Priority Level 2 Attributes.
For example of what this would look like in AToW points:
Priority       Attribute    Skills     Advantages    BattleMech
   0              1,800         90               0                  0-200 
   1              2,100        100            100                400
   2              2,400        150            200                600
   3              2,700        190            300                800
   4              3,000        200            400               1,000

So as you can see taking Priority 4 in any of the categories is not the same. As said earlier the categories are balanced to the game not to some set point system
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2022, 08:14:10
My point is that a priority system just changes the arbitrage between the categories.  With AToW, the arbitrage is built into the relative costs.  It's all just accounting, no matter how you slice it.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 08:26:12
My point is that a priority system just changes the arbitrage between the categories.  With AToW, the arbitrage is built into the relative costs.  It's all just accounting, no matter how you slice it.

But for that to be true the categories would have to come to equal outcome and they don't.
For your example to work, If I choose one grouping of priority or another the total gains should be the same but again their not.
That is my point. As they are balanced to themselves based on the restrictions of the game, not some arbitrary point value the PTB decided on.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2022, 09:01:38
That's the arbitrage I'm talking about.  A certain number of Attribute points translate into a different number of skill points, etc.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 09:03:05
The major point here is that the priorities for the different categories are different because "Skills" are not the same as "Attributes" which are not the same as "Advantages" which are not the same as "Vehicles" which are not the same as "Race"

And no, AToW doesn't show this as all points come from the same total and are spend from the same pool. it take 100 points to get one at Attribute level, Vehicle are rolled into Traits which again take 100 points to achieve one level an either. The fact that skills use a different leveling system does not change the fact that they are still coming from that pool and draining the pool at a far greater rate then just changing one priority level.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 09:13:50
That's the arbitrage I'm talking about.  A certain number of Attribute points translate into a different number of skill points, etc.

But they don't, believe me from experience with the MW2 optional rule.
The variation per level follows no real pattern. 

0=2.75
1=1.75
2=1.2
3=1.35
4=1.25
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2022, 09:23:27
I didn't say there was a pattern, just that trades are trades.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 09:37:02
I didn't say there was a pattern, just that trades are trades.

To translate their has to be a pattern. You can't as you put it "translate" one category to another category if their is not pattern or fixed denominator.
That would be like translating English to Gibberish.
As for Arbitrage the items have to be similar financial instruments in different markets or in different forms.
So there has to be some relation or it just two different items in two different markets, so it's not arbitrage.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2022, 09:56:13
Except that with a priority system, you're trading points of one for points of another.  Yes the values are different, but they're still trades.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 10:09:56
Except that with a priority system, you're trading points of one for points of another.  Yes the values are different, but they're still trades.

But for it to be a trade or trade-off you would have to be forced to have one or the other, but you can have both Skills and Attributes at level 4.
And again Skill points and Attribute points are not in anyway similar.
Skill points are spent in a progressively climbing cost where Attribute points are 1=1.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2022, 10:24:12
But the bonuses you derive from those Attribute points aren't 1-for-1.  You need a 4 to avoid a penalty, 7 to get +1, and 10 to get +2.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 11:05:02
But the bonuses you derive from those Attribute points aren't 1-for-1.  You need a 4 to avoid a penalty, 7 to get +1, and 10 to get +2.

?
One Attribute point buys one level of Attribute, and Attributes don't apply penalties or bonus in MW2.
Two Attribute are added together then subtracted from 18 to get your base target number.
Attribute only normally go to 6 never 10 with the normal max being Elementals or Pilot who can get a 8 in Body or Reflexes only respectably. You could possibly get to 9 as an Elemental or Pilot if you took "Exceptional Attribute" but the expenditures for such a choose would leave you pretty lean as a character.
Not sure were you are getting all the rest of that.

Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Carbon Elasmobranch on 03 July 2022, 11:18:06
?
One Attribute point buys one level of Attribute, and Attributes don't apply penalties or bonus in MW2.
Two Attribute are added together then subtracted from 18 to get your base target number.
Attribute only normally go to 6 never 10 with the normal max being Elementals or Pilot who can get a 8 in Body or Reflexes only respectably. You could possibly get to 9 as an Elemental or Pilot if you took "Exceptional Attribute" but the expenditures for such a choose would leave you pretty lean as a character.
Not sure were you are getting all the rest of that.

Exceptional Attribute explicitly mentioned that it was for base phenotype humans only, and whatever potential it represented was already present in Clan phenotypes in their special bonuses. So, for MW2 RAW, there was no possibility of getting any Attributes above 8 for anyone.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: victor_shaw on 03 July 2022, 11:20:30
Exceptional Attribute explicitly mentioned that it was for base phenotype humans only, and whatever potential it represented was already present in Clan phenotypes in their special bonuses. So, for MW2 RAW, there was no possibility of getting any Attributes above 8 for anyone.

I stand corrected.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 03 July 2022, 11:26:49
Ah, I see... we were talking past each other.  I was talking game systems in general and AToW for examples, you were talking MW2 in specific.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: All4BigGuns on 24 August 2022, 21:11:17
The pdf version is MUCH cheaper.  Any particular reason for the need for a hard copy?

Hard copies are easier for people with bad eyes to read, and it's easier for many to flip through a book to find something than to use a phone or tablet to get it.

Edit- And sorry about the delayed response. I don't check forums as much as I once did.
Title: Re: The future of "A Time of War"
Post by: Daryk on 25 August 2022, 03:11:30
No worries, and those reasons make sense.  :)