The future of "A Time of War"

[victor_shaw]

They tried the random event thing in 3rd edition... it wasn't great.

The problem with 3rd edition random event tables where, they ran the gantlet between the rolls being to good and way to bad.
Besides that the Character creation system in 3rd was actually a lot better then what we have now.
1. You didn't have the issues with paying for Traits and Attributes you didn't get.
2. Traits and Attributes where bought from their own set XP Pool.
3. Optimization was quirkier. 
4. The Paths where more immersive.
5. Character creation didn't feel like just adding up meaningless numbers.

Overall it was a far better system with just one flaw.
The system was ok with just the 2d6 random roll, still needed to be toned down though, but instead they up the problem by switching to 2d10 and making the far ends even larger issues (Superhuman or crippled)

[victor_shaw]

It wasn't great because it was just poorly implemented. As I said, looking at (later editions of) Traveller is a good place to start. One
major issue with the random events in 3rd Edition was simply that they often seemed irrelevant, or made little sense. Star Trek Adventures,
the current Star Trek RPG, also uses Random Events to do some elements in chargen. And then you have the Heritage Tables in all editions
of Legend of the Five Rings. Random Events *can* work well. Just....MW3rd, with its already involved math handled them poorly because they
just added more math...MW3rd and AToW probably would have done better to have been licensed GURPS products, and would have been less
math heavy.

I'm a huge fan of GURPS, but math light it is not.
As for Legend of the Five Rings, the Heritage Tables only add flavor advantage/disadvantages. You don't really get life threatening ones.

[Daryk]

GURPS is also a 3d6 system...  :P

[idea weenie]

The problem with 3rd edition random event tables where, they ran the gantlet between the rolls being to good and way to bad.
(snip)
Overall it was a far better system with just one flaw.
The system was ok with just the 2d6 random roll, still needed to be toned down though, but instead they up the problem by switching to 2d10 and making the far ends even larger issues (Superhuman or crippled)

What should have been done for all the random charts is making them the same range.  I.e. all 2d6, all 3d6, all 2d10, or whatever.  This way a GM could tell their players they have X number of points to spend on the lifepath charts.

If using 2d6 and the GM wants an average game, the players get 28 pts to spend on the 4 lifepath rolls.  If the GM wants a semi-heroic game, the players get more than 28 pts.

This may wind up with min-maxing where players take some rolls as extremely low to get one roll extremely high, but that is gaming.  If done well, the players might have gone with X points to spend on the lifepath charts, and for every pt not spent they get some amount of XP they can spend as they choose.  This amount of XP is less than they would have spent to get the benefits of a 1 pt higher on a lifepath roll, but can be used for anything.


At least it is not Traveller where it was possible to die during character creation.

[Daryk]

I might be remembering wrong, but I think there was at least one random result that was at least equivalent to character death in 3rd edition..

[victor_shaw]

I might be remembering wrong, but I think there was at least one random result that was at least equivalent to character death in 3rd edition..

There were some that kept you from making the character you wanted. But none that were the equivalent of death that I remember.

[monbvol]

They could make a character downright unplayable and make it impossible to stick to your original character concept.

I'm not against random events but ever since I watched a member of our gaming group at the time start out trying to make a police officer but get so derailed and frustrated by the random events that he decided his character was a serial killer instead I'm firmly in the camp that if they are included they need to be such that they never derail a concept completely.

[StCptMara]

They could make a character downright unplayable and make it impossible to stick to your original character concept.

I'm not against random events but ever since I watched a member of our gaming group at the time start out trying to make a police officer but get so derailed and frustrated by the random events that he decided his character was a serial killer instead I'm firmly in the camp that if they are included they need to be such that they never derail a concept completely.

I totally get this. I like the idea that they do things a character might be able to work around (like a Lost Limb or a bad Reputation) but should not go into areas that actually cripple the concept someone taking that life path would want (i.e., they should not end up with your House 'Mechwarrior dishonorably discharged and Wanted). At the same time, the positive qualities should be stuff that won't challenge the writing of your character, so Wealth? Sure! Rank/Commission? Maybe... Title? No!

I also very much like how Destiny handles the Vehicle: taking the trait a couple levels above what you want means you own it. Rather than having to take the Owns Vehicle Trait. Admittedly, I do think Custom Vehicle should be kept separate, just to represent that having something non-standard is a significant investment.

[victor_shaw]

I agree with StCptMara.
The random tables should be used to add to the story that the player through character creation is trying to tell about the PCs past.
It should never derail the story or force an unwanted outcome, but instead augment and add flavor to said story.
It should also give supporting ideas like enemies, allies and/or open up new paths for the PC like offering (if the player wants only) officers training, recruitment into intelligence agencies, Etc.
Thing like this enhance the character but don't derail the players vision of what they want the final character to be.

I have said this multiple times for multiple RPG "Player/GM don't need the game to tell them what their characters are going to be. The game is there just to give them the mechanics and framework to be said character." This concept has been lost on a lot of RPG designers in the last few years. They all seem to think that the game should decide how your characters are made (concept not mechanics) how the game is run or the narrative told and how characters should act during the game. (the dice say you character is: scared, angry, Etc.)

[victor_shaw]

The funny thing about all of this is "if" they where to reuse the 3rd edition character creation rule they would just need to remove or revamp the random tables and change out a few skill/Trait names.
This would give them a wealth of already established paths to work with.

[TheOldDragoon]

Replying to the "GURPS is 3d6" comment.

I ran GURPS MechWarrior for years, but what we did was your Pilot and Gunnery when mounted was equal to 20-GURPS Skill.  So if you had a 16 in Pilot BattleMech, it worked out to a 4 in Battletech.  This made being a competent MechWarrior pretty damned expensive in GURPS terms, especially since we broke Gunnery up into Ballistic/Energy/Missile.  But it kept everyone from being a 0/0 P/G within a few sessions.

Right now I'm looking hard at Mongoose Traveller 2nd Edition and Stars Without Number as engines for MechWarrior.  I've got a Destiny campaign running now, but I'm not entirely happy with how the mechanics are working out.

[Daryk]

Glad you found a solution from GURPS...  :thumbsup:

Can NOT comment on that other RPG system.

[Greatclub]

I'm wondering how a 'blades in the dark' mod would work.

[Daryk]

Is that the "all rogues all the time" RPG?  I might have played that once...  8)

[victor_shaw]

All other mechanical issues aside.
The main issue with ATOW is that it has to meet the requirements of two completely different groups.
Pure RPG players and Table top Boardgame players.
And the middle ground doesn't quite work for either.

[Paul]

And the middle ground doesn't quite work for either.

Nice, have one these:
 :thumbsup:

[Daryk]

I think we could get there with enough effort... I at least am willing...  8)

[StCptMara]

All other mechanical issues aside.
The main issue with ATOW is that it has to meet the requirements of two completely different groups.
Pure RPG players and Table top Boardgame players.
And the middle ground doesn't quite work for either.

Isn't Destiny the middle ground?

[victor_shaw]

Isn't Destiny the middle ground?

No, it's even more to the far left then most RPG players like.

And geared towards the super casual players like D&D 5th edition.

[StCptMara]

No, it's even more to the far left then most RPG players like.

And geared towards the super casual players like D&D 5th edition.

I am going to disagree there. I don't think most RPG players want spreadsheets. They want to be able to build their character over a single session, and then jump in to playing. Which is what Destiny does.

D&D will always be geared towards new gamers, because they know they are the gateway game. I would not look at that as a negative. Destiny serves the purpose of being an effective pilot generator, and an RPG, which is why I say it is close to that middle ground.

[Elmoth]

No, it's even more to the far left then most RPG players like.

And geared towards the super casual players like D&D 5th edition.

"Not oriented towards numbers combos" and "casual player" are 2 VERY different things here. Quite a few gamers I know do not like number crunching because they want to role play not roll play. I would be wary to say that they are casual for that.

[victor_shaw]

I am going to disagree there. I don't think most RPG players want spreadsheets. They want to be able to build their character over a single session, and then jump in to playing. Which is what Destiny does.

D&D will always be geared towards new gamers, because they know they are the gateway game. I would not look at that as a negative. Destiny serves the purpose of being an effective pilot generator, and an RPG, which is why I say it is close to that middle ground.

Look, I'm not going to argue the good and bad about Destiny as I don't feel it has any good.
I don't even look at it as a true table top RPG, it's more like a theater of the mind game.
so, no it is not anywhere near the middle ground.
But the point I was making about AToW is that it is more towards the Boardgamer side then the RPG side.

Charts, Spreadsheet, ridiculous amounts of plug and play traits for every aspect of life, everything down to the equipment having to be balances, etc.

[victor_shaw]

"Not oriented towards numbers combos" and "casual player" are 2 VERY different things here. Quite a few gamers I know do not like number crunching because they want to role play not roll play. I would be wary to say that they

Not sure what the last part was going to be so I will go with what made it to print.

People seem to think I think AToW is at a good place and I am defending it, far from it.
That's why I put almost 2 years into bringing Mechwarrior 2nd edition up-to-snuff.
I look at AToW as a overblown train wreck that took the worst point buy system they could come up with and put it into print.
I don't think either current version (using the word loosely for AToW) is good in there current form.
The difference is, I think the issues with AToW could be fixed to make it work, while all the problems I see with Destiny are intentional.
As to the "Quite a few gamers I know do not like number crunching because they want to role play not roll play". Your definition of Roleplay and Roll Play need to be a little more defined then "number crunching" for me to respond. Because I also know players that don't like number crunching, but some are talking about AToW/GURPS/Champions level number crunching, and other don't like to add (3+4=7).
I personally, like my Roleplaying around the level of Mechwarrior 2nd edition, but can handle slightly higher crunch.
AToW is to far to the number crunching, super crunch for me, and Destiny is way to rules light and campfire tales for me.

[victor_shaw]

I am going to disagree there. I don't think most RPG players want spreadsheets. They want to be able to build their character over a single session, and then jump in to playing. Which is what Destiny does.

D&D will always be geared towards new gamers, because they know they are the gateway game. I would not look at that as a negative. Destiny serves the purpose of being an effective pilot generator, and an RPG, which is why I say it is close to that middle ground.

I'm going to handle the D&D 5th here.
The problem with 5th is it it took all the years of trying to turn D&D from Chainmail to a true RPG, throw them out and instead turn the game into a family funtime casual game. And D&D "gateway game" status is a lot more overblown then people think. Truth is that very few of the player that I play with in any of my groups over the years started with D&D. I myself actually started Roleplaying in the Top Secret (Original) and MechWarrior: The BattleTech Role Playing Game (1st ed) RPG.

[Elmoth]

I have no experience with either destiny or AToW mechanics myself, so can't comment on that front. I was contesting that people that do not like to centre on the math and long (numeric) character creation processes are casual roleplayers.

[monbvol]

Having played and ran D&D5e I would not put it in the same category as Destiny in terms of casual versus complex.  But that's all I'll say as even that feels like I'm too close to picking a fight I actually do not intend to.

AToW as much as I think it does many things better than MW2 I will grant does have too much math for the sake of math to it and it goes about certain things in a way that it does not have the frameworks to guide GMs, especially those new to the setting or GMing.

To be clear I think there is more good than bad and a revised edition just might get us there.  If not it'll at least show the way.

[Daryk]

AToW can definitely be made better, and I'm working on it (see my sig block).

[Greatclub]

Is that the "all rogues all the time" RPG?  I might have played that once...  8)

An accurate description, but there is also the "band of blades" mod, which is 'all infantry all the time", and beam saber, which is basically gundum on a forged in the dark system. It is mostly the latter I'm considering.

There is no way I'm getting my crew into the current ATOW. Most wouldn't be willing to put in the effort to learn the system, and I'm not sure two could (multiple concussions each.)  Destiny is a maybe.

[StCptMara]

I don't even look at it as a true table top RPG, it's more like a theater of the mind game.

(bolded for emphasis): Theatre of the mind *are* true RPGs. They are not tactical simulations, true, but they are about the acting and immersion into your character. Stats exist to provide guidelines, but it is becoming the character that is the heart of an RPG. It is the telling of stories, the evoking of imagery that the true skill of a good GM. I have been playing and GMing RPGs for 25 years, and I have always done "Theatre of the mind," though we didn't call it that back in the day(the term didn't really exist until, what, a decade or so ago?). We called it, wait for it, "Role Playing" and "Story driven."

[victor_shaw]

(bolded for emphasis): Theatre of the mind *are* true RPGs. They are not tactical simulations, true, but they are about the acting and immersion into your character. Stats exist to provide guidelines, but it is becoming the character that is the heart of an RPG. It is the telling of stories, the evoking of imagery that the true skill of a good GM. I have been playing and GMing RPGs for 25 years, and I have always done "Theatre of the mind," though we didn't call it that back in the day(the term didn't really exist until, what, a decade or so ago?). We called it, wait for it, "Role Playing" and "Story driven."

I like how you omitted the "table top" part of the commit to make your point.
I have been roleplaying for well over 30+ years (not going to give actual age) so using this as an I know better statement is not going to work with me, thats why I don't use it.
Their is a major difference between playing a role and playing a role playing game.
One is just called acting and the other is playing a game.
While "Theatre of the mind" may have been a bad choice of words, The reason why I don't think Destiny qualifies as a true "table top" RPG is that the focus is not on the characters but on telling the story.
In a true table top RPG, the focus in on the character and how the player decided to interact with the GM/NPCs and the other players.
In Destiny, the focus in on narrating a story with the characters just as pawns within the narrative.
For this to work you need every member of the group to have little to no interest in advancing their characters with the total groups interest overriding personal goals.
Destiny comes off as a chain campfire story with little to nothing in the way of structure.
I have played game of this sort multiple times in my life including other game in the Cue system line and they never end well.
even if you use the optional GM controlled version you just move to AToW light, with little in the way of substance and a extremely watered down character.
This is the same issues that sunk or is sinking games like Dragonlance Fifth Age, and to a lesser extent Shadowrun 6th world.
This is the issues with Destiny.