The future of "A Time of War"

[Frabby]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

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.

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Frabby]

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.

[Talen5000]

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?

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Daryk]

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...

[Talen5000]

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.

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

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...

[Talen5000]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[abou]

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!

[Maelwys]

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?

[victor_shaw]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[victor_shaw]

*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 

[warhammer74]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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.

 

[Daryk]

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).

[victor_shaw]

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:

[Daryk]

It was annoying to program in to the spreadsheet, but doable.

[Talen5000]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)