The future of "A Time of War"

[Elmoth]

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.

[rjhancock]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[rjhancock]

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.

[Bedwyr]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[ActionButler]

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.

[Elmoth]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/mechwarrior-second-edition-optional-rule/

[Giorgio76]

KS BT CI Update #127; ATOW RPG Reprint
.
I made a new thread on the ATOW forums to discuss this new information.

[Col Toda]

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.

[kronovan]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Maelwys]

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

[Daryk]

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.

[Atlas3060]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

Having had to flip through physical rule books at a con will scar one for life.  Guilty as charged as being a "veteran" (grognard).

[Grand_dm]

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.

[Daryk]

If you need any help, just PM me!  :)

[Col Toda]

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 .

[Carbon Elasmobranch]

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.

[Daryk]

I think they got the skill list "close enough".  Specializations still exist, after all, and are less desirable than in earlier editions.

[Carbon Elasmobranch]

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?