The future of "A Time of War"

[victor_shaw]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Dahmin_Toran]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

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.

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.

[Daryk]

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"?  ???

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[monbvol]

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-

[Daryk]

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".

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

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)

[idea weenie]

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

[Daryk]

The way I implemented Gun Kata is useful beyond melee range...  ^-^

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Daryk]

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!

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Talen5000]

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

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.

[Kerfuffin(925)]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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"