The future of "A Time of War"

[Daryk]

I've played Amber, and even less structured games over the years.  Personally, I need a little more outlining how I should expect things to work in the game's world.  The game I cannot name sets up expectations that are 180 out from how BattleTech works.  The tweaks I'm making to AToW are trying to bring it closer to what we see at the other scales of BattleTech, and I daresay Victor Shaw's efforts with MW2e are at least going in a similar direction.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the oldest argument: should BattleTech's RPG be an RPG first, or part of BattleTech first.  I'm firmly in the latter camp.

[All4BigGuns]

Rather new to Battletech itself, and I haven't had a chance to actually play the RPG yet since I can't get hold of a physical copy, but from what I've read of the corebook PDF and from the LifePath character generation I did (which I always do first when I find a new RPG to help learn the system), I love it. I especially love that I can easily slot a mechwarrior character made in this into a BattleMech on the table in the other game. We really need this reprinted, as I doubt I'll ever get to play until I can get a physical copy or two.

[Daryk]

The pdf version is MUCH cheaper.  Any particular reason for the need for a hard copy?

[FastConcentrate8]

The pdf version is MUCH cheaper.  Any particular reason for the need for a hard copy?

I guess for collection reasons.

[pokefan548]

I have it on PDF, but I can't imagine running it from there. I just work so much more intuitively with physical books.

[monbvol]

I have it on PDF, but I can't imagine running it from there. I just work so much more intuitively with physical books.

*nod*

For me PDFs are fine for on the spot of looking stuff up but if I really want to learn/digest a system, it's DTF or bust.

[Daryk]

Totally legit reason!  8)

[idea weenie]

PDF for looking up, and print the key pages (single-sided) for large comparison capability?

I.e. instead of scrolling up and down on the same PDF, I can print out a few key pages and have those side-by-side.  Instead of needing a larger screen to compare different pages, you just need a larger flat surface.

[Daryk]

You begin to understand my love of the OG TacOps tables...  ^-^

[StCptMara]

*nod*

For me PDFs are fine for on the spot of looking stuff up but if I really want to learn/digest a system, it's DTF or bust.

It is also generally faster to find what you need in DTF books then having to scroll page after page, and DTF never freezes up when you are looking because it needs to render a page with multiple layers..

[Dr. Banzai]

It is also generally faster to find what you need in DTF books then having to scroll page after page, and DTF never freezes up when you are looking because it needs to render a page with multiple layers..

Ctrl + F

Also, if you set up your windows explorer correctly, searching in the folders for words can bring back results that are in the PDFs. (For example, typing McKenna in the windows search can show you all the PDFs that contain it.)

[Xotl]

New AToW errata is up.

[Daryk]

Clearly you love us!  :thumbsup:

[Grand_dm]

I hope there is a future. I mean at this point there is not even a POD available that I'm aware of. That is the easiest thing to format and upload to DriveThruRPG.

[victor_shaw]

I hope there is a future. I mean at this point there is not even a POD available that I'm aware of. That is the easiest thing to format and upload to DriveThruRPG.

The new errata makes note of a 3rd printing 2022.
Maybe this is an indicator that they plan to release a new printing this year.
That said, it would just be the same old busted RPG with the errata included.

[Talen5000]

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.

Gonna agree and disagree

The problem here is that the RPG rules caters to the TableTop game in tbe first place.

And it shouldn't. CGL already has a game for the TTG. It's called BattleTech.  AToW is made even worse because it also tries to shoehorn in BattleTroops.

So, AToW is trying to be an RPG, a squad based combat game and a TableTop Wargame. It tries to be BattleTech and AeroTech and CityTech and BattleTroops and Succession Wars and so on and it does none of them well.

AToW should be an RPG...the game set at the personal scale of tbe BTU. Mech combat should be "out of scope"...a background element. Not the main or central or major focus it is in AToW. Sure, it is nice to plug your character into a Mech on the board, but all ATOW needs is a way to convert Gunnery and Piloting between the two. Even allowing for more advanced integration, you only need only seven skills and the phrase "Mech combat should take place using BattleTech". And that conversion coukd be as simple as "divide skill level by 2 and subtract the result from 7"

A BT RPG does not need to cater to the TTG. FASA tried. WK tried. FP tried. CGL tried. They all failed.

[victor_shaw]

Gonna agree and disagree

The problem here is that the RPG rules caters to the TableTop game in tbe first place.

And it shouldn't. CGL already has a game for the TTG. It's called BattleTech.  AToW is made even worse because it also tries to shoehorn in BattleTroops.

So, AToW is trying to be an RPG, a squad based combat game and a TableTop Wargame. It tries to be BattleTech and AeroTech and CityTech and BattleTroops and Succession Wars and so on and it does none of them well.

AToW should be an RPG...the game set at the personal scale of tbe BTU. Mech combat should be "out of scope"...a background element. Not the main or central or major focus it is in AToW. Sure, it is nice to plug your character into a Mech on the board, but all ATOW needs is a way to convert Gunnery and Piloting between the two. Even allowing for more advanced integration, you only need only seven skills and the phrase "Mech combat should take place using BattleTech". And that conversion coukd be as simple as "divide skill level by 2 and subtract the result from 7"

A BT RPG does not need to cater to the TTG. FASA tried. WK tried. FP tried. CGL tried. They all failed.

I completely agree that the main book should be an RPG first and a TTG never.
But a good RPG based Vehicle combat system in one of the expansions like the Mechwarrior companion, or some type of RPG vehicle book would be nice for those of us that don't want to pull out the TTG and waste our entire gaming session on one Mech combat would be nice.

[Dahmin_Toran]

I think CGL is going in the right direction with Mechwarrior Destiny with abstract Mech/Vehicle combat without the need for maps and a quick resolution.

[pokefan548]

I think CGL is going in the right direction with Mechwarrior Destiny with abstract Mech/Vehicle combat without the need for maps and a quick resolution.

Maybe from a very, very broad standpoint. In my experience, it breaks down hard outside of the most basic 'Mech-on-'Mech fights.

Anyways, I don't mind AToW doing so much. I do wish that, in some regards, it was a bit more confident in leaning on Classic and other BattleTech systems for larger-scale stuff, but there's a lot that can only be adequately handled with the degree of individual detail that AToW provides (at least as compared to the other BattleTech systems). My friends and I have actually been getting the urge to experiment with AToW squad combat to try out some smaller-scale, non-RPG combat.

That being said, would I mind if a lot of that stuff was moved to another book in exchange for AToW and AToWC's RPG stuff getting merged into a single book? No, not at all.

[monbvol]

Yeah that BattleTroops 2.0 stuff probably does need excised but at the same time I think there is a catch 22 situation going on here.

There is a certain element of being told to use a different book to resolve perhaps the biggest selling point of the setting, giant robots stomping on other giant robots, is a non-starter for too many people.

Add in even with the influx of new blood we've been getting the past few years, Battletech is still very much a niche and the RPG is a niche of this niche.

So the RPG to be viable has to integrate with Total Warfare/Alphastrike but be able to stand on it's own and still provide it's own independent resolution system for.  Otherwise it just simply won't attract enough people.

[Dahmin_Toran]

Maybe from a very, very broad standpoint. In my experience, it breaks down hard outside of the most basic 'Mech-on-'Mech fights.

I agree for the most part, but I find that you could use Abstract Mech/Vehicle combat in pretty much any Mechwarrior RPG (since all simply convert Piloting/Gunnery skills) by using the Abstract Aerospace Combat rules. You just substitute an aerial/space dogfight with Mechs or Tanks maneuvering for a better shooting position.

[pokefan548]

I agree for the most part, but I find that you could use Abstract Mech/Vehicle combat in pretty much any Mechwarrior RPG (since all simply convert Piloting/Gunnery skills) by using the Abstract Aerospace Combat rules. You just substitute an aerial/space dogfight with Mechs or Tanks maneuvering for a better shooting position.

As someone with a partly rational, partly irrational hatred of the abstract aerospace combat rules, this approach displeases me.

[Daryk]

BattleTech's unique strength is the continuity from the RPG level all the way up to ISAW (even if flawed).  The RPG first vs. BT first argument has been going since MW1e.  And BT first is the side I'm on.  If RPG-ness first is your priority, you'll adapt some other system you prefer to the fluff of the universe.  TPTB had their priorities right with AToW, even if execution could have been better.  That other game is going in the completely wrong direction.  An abstract system that can't resolve to the TW level (and it doesn't... Assassins uber alles!) is worse than useless: it creates false expectations in players that ought to enjoy the whole enchilada.

[victor_shaw]

BattleTech's unique strength is the continuity from the RPG level all the way up to ISAW (even if flawed).  The RPG first vs. BT first argument has been going since MW1e.  And BT first is the side I'm on.  If RPG-ness first is your priority, you'll adapt some other system you prefer to the fluff of the universe.  TPTB had their priorities right with AToW, even if execution could have been better.  That other game is going in the completely wrong direction.  An abstract system that can't resolve to the TW level (and it doesn't... Assassins uber alles!) is worse than useless: it creates false expectations in players that ought to enjoy the whole enchilada.

The thing for me is I come to battletech from a RPG background and not a TTG one.
And looking back on the MW RPGs we have gotten, I have to say 2nd was the closest we got to an even decent RPG and that was mostly because they swiped a good chunk of the rules from Shadowrun. The problem with linking the RPG to close to the TTG is as monbvol stated " Battletech is still very much a niche and the RPG is a niche of this niche."
But where we differ is that coming from the RPG side of things forcing me or my players to put out a boardgame to run an essential part of the universe, and wasting a whole session or more on it is a major turnoff. When most if not all other RPGs can handle most forms of combat 15-30 minutes.

[Daryk]

Again, BT is about the whole enchilada.  Why play an RPG about star-spanning empires if you're not going to span the stars?  Why play an RPG about 'mechs without 'mechs?? ???

[Col Toda]

If the re relased ATOW  with a priority based system attribites : skills : traits for a faster streamlined point based  character creation system they would be far better off than the mess that is Destiny. 

[victor_shaw]

Again, BT is about the whole enchilada.  Why play an RPG about star-spanning empires if you're not going to span the stars?  Why play an RPG about 'mechs without 'mechs?? ???

One, the BTU is about the BTU not just Mechs.
Two, no-one every said that they should get rid of Mechs in the RPG.
The two stances that have been debating are Talen5000's that BattleMech combat should be left to the TTG and not shoehorned into the RPGs.
Or my stance that the Vehicle portion of the game should be a more roleplaying experience and less of a boardgame that derails and takes over an RPG session.
The issues is in most versions of the game, AToW included, the game tries to hard to be just a pilot simulator for the TTG and less about actually being an RPG.
When a typical 4 hour RPG session turns into 30 min of roleplaying and 3.5 + hours of board gaming, the game is failing as an RPG.
AToW is a great example as the basic RPG game mechanics take up about 10 pgs. and the combat rule take up 29 pgs., but the Tactical combat rules take up 26 pgs.
I mean the rules just for Vehicle combat take up 44% of the rules in the book and it for the most part just amounts to how to play the TTG with some fluff info and on how to handle a PC getting hit by a Mech weapon.
Look, I know that both 2nd and 3rd did the same thing to a point, but both of those version put that information in a separate book from the core rules.
Overall, the issues with the MechWarrior RPGs in general is, they never truly setout to be RPGs as that has never seemed to be TPTBs goal.
They are at their core Pilot/soldier generators for the TTG, with some fluff added to make them seem like an RPG.

When the AToW core book has
32 pages of short stories (wasted space)
9 pages of basic rules
31 pages of combat rule
25 pages of table top integration rule requiring at minimum two other board games (Battletech/Aerotech)
and a whopping 71 pages of equipment
even the GM section is 10 pages of RPG info and 41 pages of fluff.
As for extremely overcomplicated lifepath character creation system you are looking at 102 pages with 47 of those pages just being Lifepaths and how to use them.
you have to ask yourself.
Who was this game written for?
There is a reason that Mechwarrior did not make my top 5 RPGs or an Honorable Mention.

Lets look at my favorite RPG Star Wars D6 for an example
around 12 pages of short stories
12 pages of basic rules
11 pages of combat rule
28 pages of fully RPG integrated Vehicle/Space combat rules covering all aspects of Vehicle/Space combat without the need for other books or TTGs
25 pages of equipment
GM section is 20 pages of RPG info and 13 pages of fluff.
The character creation system is around 54 pages with 19 of those pages being the core Templates.

[Daryk]

And Star Wars isn't my cup of tea either.  We have different tastes in RPGs, and that's to be expected.  But I think TPTB got THEIR RPG right.  Sure, it's a pilot generator at its core.  OK.  But it certainly has enough beyond that to make a range of fully fleshed out characters, and the life path method drives that home in a way few other RPGs even come close to.  I truly enjoy character creation with AToW.  Even when it's generating the 100+ members of a unit.  All those flex points are how you differentiate the troops.

[Bedwyr]

Apologies for interrupting guys. I was just wondering offhand if you knew of a source of Star Wars RPG dice? They're really hard to find.


Sorry sorry and continue the discussion.

[victor_shaw]

Apologies for interrupting guys. I was just wondering offhand if you knew of a source of Star Wars RPG dice? They're really hard to find.


Sorry sorry and continue the discussion.

Star Wars RPG dice?
Are you talking about FFG Star Wars?
If so look up Edge-Studios.net they have the publishing license, but I can't find a store for them.
I would go to your local game store and see if they can order it or get it off eBay. (its Not Cheap)
Another option is to pick up one of the Starter boxes as they each come with a pack of dice.