The future of "A Time of War"

[Daryk]

It's no different than the pdf character sheets out there for D&D these days.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Daryk]

Also, on affiliations: I count 70 in about 10 pages in just AToW.  What was the issue there?  That they're not detailed enough?

[Talen5000]

Your descriptions of Traveller and Shadowrun are spot on: the former is far more restrictive

Which is why LifePath system is far more viable.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Daryk]

*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...

[Talen5000]

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.

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.

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

[Daryk]

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...

[monbvol]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

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.

[Daryk]

Did you have more to add?  There seem to be a large number of blank lines at the end of your post...  ???

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

GURPS has never really caught my fancy.  Even I'd think it would, but for some reason it just doesn't.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

GURPS uses a 3d6 system if I remember right... that might be the source of my discomfort...

[victor_shaw]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

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...

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

I never got a look at Legionary... what made it "quick and highly effective"?  ???

[victor_shaw]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

Interesting... I can only imagine it's better than the system I can't name.

[Talen5000]

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.

[monbvol]

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.