The future of "A Time of War"

[victor_shaw]

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.

While I understand that SW is not everyone's "cup of tea" it was and still is a well received RPG. The point I was making is that with far less wasted space WEG made a far superior product and had the same (or more) flexibility with a far simpler and smaller page count set of rules.

[Daryk]

We've talked extensively before, and I know we share a contempt for fiction in rulebooks.  Outside of that, I think we have different opinions of what constitutes "wasted space".

[idea weenie]

One game that nicely mixed RPG and tabletop was Iron Kingdoms, for Warmachine.  The Hit point layout for the RPG was identical to the one used on the tabletop miniatures game.  You could literally take your tabletop opponents and put them into an RPG session, and vice versa, with nearly no changes needed.

[victor_shaw]

We've talked extensively before, and I know we share a contempt for fiction in rulebooks.  Outside of that, I think we have different opinions of what constitutes "wasted space".

My definition of wasted space it using 20+ pages to add a thin cover over the TTG that extends an already overly long diversion for the RPG or 47 pages  of templates that don't even provide a half finished character.

[Daryk]

I think the life paths get much further down that road, but now I'm repeating myself.

[idea weenie]

I think the life paths get much further down that road, but now I'm repeating myself.

How about separating the lifepaths into their own book, and instead going with a few very generic lifepaths in the main book?  One for rough types of background (poor, middle-class, luxury), a small variation depending on the House or Periphery nation, and giving 3-4 options (instead of the 2d10 tables).  Each lifepath would take up half a page total, meaning the total size for the lifepath section is lower (3 paths per stage, then half a page of location-based options).  Total size for all four stages would be 8 pages.

You could then have a separate book with the full lifepath options, giving much more variety for character creation.  These would be more efficient in the XP cost vs skill pts acquired, but more locked in on your options.

[Daryk]

2d10 tables?  I think you're mixing your editions there...

[Greatclub]

One game that nicely mixed RPG and tabletop was Iron Kingdoms, for Warmachine.  The Hit point layout for the RPG was identical to the one used on the tabletop miniatures game.  You could literally take your tabletop opponents and put them into an RPG session, and vice versa, with nearly no changes needed.

As much as that's a game I wish I got a chance to play...

"infantry" and "mecha" are far closer in that universe than they ever will be for battletech. Also, it's a wargame with some RPG stuff tacked on.

[red_tok]

In my mind, ATOW isn't as much an RPG as it is a personal scale wargame. It would have been interesting to see what could have been if it had been designed by RPG writers but that's neither here nor there.

If you want a Mechwarrior creator/simulator or an extra layer to your BT gameplay, I think a revised edition could make the core of ATOW more playable. Outsource it to Daryk and you're already most of the way there!

On the other hand, I can't ever see myself running ATOW as an RPG. There are so many disparate parts and bespoke rules, although making it easier to refer to rules would make this easier to handle. I'm all for complexity if it adds something to the game but I can't see that here. Granted, I haven't actually run the game because just trying to explain the rules has driven all my friends insane  :))

They were definitely on the right track with the lifepath system though. If you are playing a BT RPG then the setting is important and it's important to integrate your character into it. I've been looking at adapting them for a slightly less insane byzantine system, but that's more work than I can justify doing atm.

I've seen references to Traveller and other systems being adapted for BT, but has anyone attempted to integrate ATOW with a different system? Basically using the best parts of each ruleset.

[victor_shaw]

My Mechwarrior 2nd Ed revision is basically MW2 with the best parts of 3rd an AToW.

[Daryk]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Red_Tok, but that's a minimum of two years away, assuming the Navy turns down my retirement waiver request...

[Talen5000]

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.

Given the nature of BT, a decent RPG based vehicular combat system should be in the core RPG books.

But that doesn't change the issue that Mech scale combat should be seen as largely out of bounds for an RPG. There should indeed be a system to let you use your character within a BT TTG, but if you are going to do that then the game should simply tell you to use the boardgame.

What does the RPG character need?
Gunnery skills and piloting skills likely need a conversion mechanic so the character can use the TTG modifiers.
Initiative becomes the appropriate Tactics skill. Thats RPG based.
Rolls to avoid shutdowns and ammo explosions? Technician or Computer skills. Again, RPG based but a conversion system to translate the Target Numbers to the RPG.
Other skills? Comms and Sensors. Again, RPG based.
Morale check? Leadership

And so on

That's not a lot of room needed, at least for a basic system. Most skills van be used as RPG skills, even on a TTG setting

Going the other way? Mech to person? The person dies. You get hit with a tank shell, you don't need to convert damage.

The RPG should be just that....an RPG. And trying to shoehorn battlefield and tactical combat and Mechs and all that has never worked.Trying to do so is a big reason why BT RPGs don't work that well. If you want  to play an RPG, you aren't likely to want to play a TTG. Even something as basic as a Trial of Grievance can sideline the entire rest of the party for an entire session or two.

A BT RPG needs a decent RPG based vehicular combat system. But it should also stay away from Mechs and Mech scale systems. That should be left to the TTG. Characters have very little chance of combatting such units even under ideal situations and such elements are best left to the background and existing TTG.

[Yes, we see miracles happen in the novels....but the authors cheat]

[Talen5000]

How about separating the lifepaths into their own book, and instead going with a few very generic lifepaths in the main book?  One for rough types of background (poor, middle-class, luxury), a small variation depending on the House or Periphery nation, and giving 3-4 options (instead of the 2d10 tables).  Each lifepath would take up half a page total, meaning the total size for the lifepath section is lower (3 paths per stage, then half a page of location-based options).  Total size for all four stages would be 8 pages.

You could then have a separate book with the full lifepath options, giving much more variety for character creation.  These would be more efficient in the XP cost vs skill pts acquired, but more locked in on your options.

The Lifepath system, put simply, does not work for BattleTech.

You have several time periods, multiple factions, multiple tech bases, and a game which allows you to roleplay everything from a Stone Age nomad up to an interstellar duke.

There are no current restrictions that would make a LifePath system work.

As a result, the system is too complex, too cumbersome and...most damning of all...too lengthy, too costly in page count.

As it is, any chargen system will need 15-20 pages simply to define the major backgrounds....Era, Faction, House/Clan, Region/Caste...on top of defining stats, attributes, skills and traits even if you used a points based system.

Which is an argument for removing or limiting some of those structures in character generation. But a LifePath system just isn't viable.

[Daryk]

What do you mean by "restrictions" to "make it work"? ??? 

[Dr. Banzai]

The Lifepath system, put simply, does not work for BattleTech.

You have several time periods, multiple factions, multiple tech bases, and a game which allows you to roleplay everything from a Stone Age nomad up to an interstellar duke.

There are no current restrictions that would make a LifePath system work.

As a result, the system is too complex, too cumbersome and...most damning of all...too lengthy, too costly in page count.

As it is, any chargen system will need 15-20 pages simply to define the major backgrounds....Era, Faction, House/Clan, Region/Caste...on top of defining stats, attributes, skills and traits even if you used a points based system.

Which is an argument for removing or limiting some of those structures in character generation. But a LifePath system just isn't viable.

Unless you like it, then it's pretty fun.

[monbvol]

One of the things I point out now and again is the fact that it is going to be a turn off to direct players to a whole separate book/system for a pretty fundamental part of the universe/game.

As far as Life Paths, yeah if you insist on a lot of detail/uniqueness they are going to be a problem.  The Life Modules of AToW are not a terrible compromise.  Especially for someone like me who is willing to accept that there are going to be certain universal truths about any character, from any era, and any tech base.

[pokefan548]

I, for one, like the life path system well enough- though I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed if it was just a bit more flexible.
But then, you can always just talk over a custom life path with its own perks and let your GM accept or deny it. Some handwaving required, but it can work.

[Daryk]

Or write your own modules (see my sig block for a few of those)...  8)

[victor_shaw]

I'm going to come strait out and say the life path system as presented in 3rd edition was far better then the one we got in 4th (AToW)
It was concise/mostly complete/engaging/and most important of all immersive. As you went through it you felt like you where your character living through his/her early life.
Did it have its problems, yes.
1. The random events were way to random.
2. The skill system was balanced at the low end.
3. There were to many pointless paths created to just fill page count.

4th on the other hand is to dependent on point totals that don't even matter in the end because they are refunded most of the time/far from complete/just number crunching (not engaging)/and so generic that its like doing math homework and not at all immersive.

And while I agree wholeheartedly with everything here, these are not my words, they are the responses I have gotten from 98% of the players that I have tried to run the game for and the last 2% lost interest after they found they when through all the hassle of character creation for a mediocre character. I have said it before, 4th is not a bad game in its core mechanics but it fails at the most crucial part of a RPG, It's character creation system is horrid. And since that is the first (and for some last) part of an RPG that your players will experience the game has already put its first foot in the grave.
And I know some GMs (not going to name names) will say things like just make the character for them/use this or that aid/etc. to them I say at least to me and my players creating their character is one of the most important parts of playing an RPG.

The fact is 4th edition in a turnoff for most players I know as soon as they start character creation.

[Daryk]

It's OK... you can say my name...  8)

As monbvol said, the way more flexibility was put in was a compromise.  One I'm OK with.

[victor_shaw]

It's OK... you can say my name...  8)

As monbvol said, the way more flexibility was put in was a compromise.  One I'm OK with.

"Say my name, say my name"
And I would be ok with more flexibility if the system was less time consuming.
But when it takes hours to get to that point and the character is still less then 55% done it's a real turnoff.
3rd may have had its flaws but at least it took a decent amount of time and when you were done with the life paths you had a close to complete character that just needed some personal touches.
The issues with 4th is its math for math sake design. I get that the point system was to balance out all characters to each other, but to me that is just not really doable in a one points pool for all skills/attributes/traits system.
Strength and Own Battlemech are never going to be equal, just like Singing and Small Arms never will to a lesser existent.
The underling one pool points system is the core of the issues with character creation system using the life paths. It can work fine for just the point build system, I still don't like it, but at least there you are not getting wasted point that you have to reassign.
Overall, I don't think AToW could be fixed to make it playable to the average RPG player without a major overhaul and I doubt CGL are willing to put to much effort into it past a proof read reprint.
So what is "The future of "A Time of War"" IMHO.
Reprint then back to obscurity.

[monbvol]

See I wonder what the difference between my group and yours is because even before I made Spreadsheet aides and we had to do Life Modules in AToW by hand my group was way more than 55% complete even by the two hour mark.

Though I will caveat that with they still prefer Point Buy and I can understand with how daunting Life Modules can be, as presented the Life Modules in AToW still are not ideal.

[victor_shaw]

See I wonder what the difference between my group and yours is because even before I made Spreadsheet aides and we had to do Life Modules in AToW by hand my group was way more than 55% complete even by the two hour mark.

Though I will caveat that with they still prefer Point Buy and I can understand with how daunting Life Modules can be, as presented the Life Modules in AToW still are not ideal.

The first group was 6 people new to the game (AToW and Battletech). When it took over an hour (About an hour and 36 minutes) for them to get through just the lifepaths and find out that only about 48-56% (depending on the paths they picked) points they had already spent counted and the rest where refunded they all decided to quit and play a different game (Legend of the Five Rings if I remember correctly).

The second group was 4 players (new to AToW but had played MW2)how finished character creation begrudgingly taking about 2 and a half hours to fully complete their characters. That group lasted about 2 sessions with most of the players not happy with the skills of the PCs and a players was killed (during mech combat (TTG)) so they decided they were not interested in going through the Character Creation system again. We switched back to Mechwarrior 2.

the thirds group was 3 players (new to AToW but had played MW2 and MW3) they spent 15 minutes working on the lifepaths before they decided they wanted to play something else. (We switched to Shadowrun 3rd edition)

Just to be clear none of the players (ok maybe one) thought the system was unassailable or impossible to understand, they all just though it was way more time and work then it was worth for the PCs you got out of it.
So all the groups were turned off by the character creation system.

[monbvol]

Hmmm.  My group had a fair bit of experience with MW3ed at the time.  D&D 3-3.5(can't remember if 4th was out or in our hands yet), Pathfinder, World of Darkness, Star Wars d6, and Rifts for not Battletech systems.

Of those I'd say Rifts probably actually helped condition us for AToW the most as that character creation system could get nuts real easy with all the stupid little things you'd have to keep track of and flip back and forth for.  I'm to this day convinced the rules for Rifts are only at best 80% complete and despite all those holes and how difficult it is to look stuff up is still looked upon more favorably than it deserves for the sheer insanity we got up to despite it.

[victor_shaw]

Hmmm.  My group had a fair bit of experience with MW3ed at the time.  D&D 3-3.5(can't remember if 4th was out or in our hands yet), Pathfinder, World of Darkness, Star Wars d6, and Rifts for not Battletech systems.

Of those I'd say Rifts probably actually helped condition us for AToW the most as that character creation system could get nuts real easy with all the stupid little things you'd have to keep track of and flip back and forth for.  I'm to this day convinced the rules for Rifts are only at best 80% complete and despite all those holes and how difficult it is to look stuff up is still looked upon more favorably than it deserves for the sheer insanity we got up to despite it.

I never played Rifts proper, but did play the Robotech (1 and Shadow Chronicles) version of the game. It was not all that hard to make a character in the system but the Rifts Power creep was strong.

Never been a fan of AD&D (All versions) at all. Loved Mystara BECMI and Dragonlances' story though.

Pathfinder was just AD&D 3.8 to me so I never really got into it.

World of Darkness Pre-Armageddon Werewolf and Vampire to a lesser existent were fun. The new stuff is just a joke.

Star Wars d6 has always been one of my favorite game systems. WEG out did themselves with that one. D6 really takes to heart my opinion that "the game should be made to fit the setting not the other way around".

Other games my group and I have played and loved include Renegade Legion (FASA Legionnaire), Legends of the Five Rings (3rd-4th edition), GURPS (3rd-4th), Shatterzone, Traveller: The New Era, Twilight 2000 (2.2), and 7th Sea (not the new one).

[victor_shaw]

If my opinion mattered, the RPG needs a complete rewrite.
While the CGL seems to be good at TTGs they have a fairly bad track record with RPGs.
Overall for me to even think about supporting a new or revised game they would have to:
1. Avoid the pitfall of Shadowrun 6th and other newer games and not go for oversimplified mush with "MacGuffin" mechanic. (Tags, Edge for everything, Special dice, Etc.)
2. Divorce Skills/Attributes/Traits from a single point system.
3. Either make lifepath character creation immersive or just get rid of it.
4. Bring the math down to a manageable level. Players want to make a character not do math homework.
5. Come up with a Vehicle combat system that is immersive, quick and doesn't detract from the RPG with a whole new system to learn outside of the RPG.
6. Stop wasting page count with a 3-4 page story every chapter. I buy a RPG book to play a game not to read a novel.
Since none of this is likely to happen the chances of me playing an RPG in the BTU outside of MW2 are pretty low.

[Daryk]

You know I'm 100% with you on #6!  :thumbsup:

As for the rest, that's not even remotely how I'd introduce the system to new players.  I do the heavy lifting the first few times (which isn't that heavy with my spreadsheet and experience with it), and let them tweak to their heart's content.  That seems to work for both them and me.

[victor_shaw]

You know I'm 100% with you on #6!  :thumbsup:

As for the rest, that's not even remotely how I'd introduce the system to new players.  I do the heavy lifting the first few times (which isn't that heavy with my spreadsheet and experience with it), and let them tweak to their heart's content.  That seems to work for both them and me.

While that may work for you and your players, I will quote one of my players about AToW "If the system requires outside assistance or someone to make the character for you it has already failed"

[Daryk]

I disagree, but you knew that already.  Most people I know (including me) had help making characters for D&D back in the day, at least the first time.

[monbvol]

For my experience I will say there are those no matter the system that will need help of some sort or that the existence of computerized aides should not be counted against the system but there is without a doubt a point past where such help becomes a must have.

AToW I can admit is close to that line but from what I have observed with my group it is not past the point where it should count against the system if an aide exists or help is asked for when it comes to character creation.

Battletech at it's heart is a crunchy, number intensive game, and any RPG made to fit in with this is almost certainly going to be too.