MechWarrior: Destiny

[Fear Factory]

1. Completely disagree with you here, this line of thinking was one of my issues with Starwars FFG.
This is just an excuse to not have to think ahead or investigate during the adventure.
Example:
GM: you come to a path full of poison gas, maybe you should have listened to that guy that said he had info on the crypt.
Player:(spends destiny point) Nope, got a gas mask out of my butt.

I don't think that's how it works. Any group would frown upon that.

Something like this would work better:

*Plays plot point*

"I panic, pull out a rag and use my canteen of water to wet it and immediately place it over my nose and mouth. I see my goal at the end of the path, close my eyes, and bolt for the exit."

And if he/she fails, the other players can play plot points in an attempt to save him/her.

This is much more creative and interesting, like a move in a movie, but it gives the character a chance to survive even though he/she is ultimately going to take damage from the gas.

Does it need work? Yes. But this is why it's a beta and not a replacement for AToW.

2. The life-path has been discussed to death at this point, even people who like the game admit that it needs work, and will probably get it after the Destiny beta according to CGL.

"Destiny (again) reinvents the wheel, but it looks like it's on the path to be something unique that fits BattleTech well. I'm hoping I can get a group together to try it out."

I have to totally disagree with you on this one, I look at it as just the opposite of Battletch.
Now I happy that you like it and it's your style of game, and I even hope we get some new players out of it (doubt it, but hope).
But I don't really see it bringing in a lot of new players to the core of the licence the Battletech Boardgame. As most of these new players will be on the opposite end of the spectrum for the Battletech Boardgame in play style.
So it will sit like everything else as a side product fighting for the leftover resources, and this is the issues I have with creating a new RPG game instead of fixing the one you already have and have said you are going to continue to support.

I stand by what I said. I want my RPG games to be like a novel, not like A Game of Armored Combat where I'm tracking a million things. Again, it's not an AToW replacement, as it states at the beginning of the document.

[monbvol]

True, it can totally be done by hand.  Though I'll add BiggRigg's videos demonstrate the level of effort required for that.

I did many characters by hand before I made my spreadsheet.  It wasn't uncommon for me to have a character with Affiliation, Stage 1, Stage 2, 1 x Stage 3 plus OCS, and 1 x Stage 4 optimized and ready to go except for equipment in about half an hour or so.

Sure it took a fair bit of paper but that is nothing new for an RPG.

Any chance of you updating you spreadsheet by the way. ;D
Love that thing.

It's been so long since I've even taken a look at that thing that I'm honestly not sure where I'd even begin if the urge ever did strike me again.  Especially as it had some potentially significant errors in it.

If the GM wants a gas filled path to be a barrier then it is a barrier regardless of what the players do. In your example if the GM does indeed allow the player to spend a Destiny point then perhaps the decision point for the players was to spend those points or to go back for gear? You GM the game and the mechanics that you have not the ones from a different system :-)

I get that some of you want a crunchier system with lots of details but this system clearly isn't intended to be that so complaining that it isn't really isn't going to get you anywhere since I doubt that CGL will change the system. Especially since it appears that AToW is that crunchy system.

If Battletech were a less crunchy game and a less crunchy setting I know I wouldn't be as concerned as I am about some of the decisions made with Destiny or about how successful Destiny will be.

[Scotty]

You seemed to have missed my point.
I was the GM and the rule don't really give me the option to say no, they are pretty clear if it is at all possible for then to have it I have to allow it.

See, you're still thinking about this as an adversarial game.  That as the GM you are supposed to provide obstacles and the players are supposed to conquer those obstacles.

This is not that game.  If you don't like that, that's okay.

[ActionButler]

Having finally had a chance to skim the rules, there’s a lot here to like, but there are a few concerns.

I love that the system is simple. 5E is a wonderful game, but not every RPG needs to strive to lift the architecture from Wizards. The contested roll mechanic is very straightforward and easy enough for anyone to understand. With all due respect to ATOW, character creation, alone, is immeasurably better, in my opinion.  I have yet to make it all the way through ATOW character creation rules without getting bored and deciding to walk away.

I’m not sure how I feel about the health mechanic, but I’m interested in giving it a try. Even with low weapon damage, the low health pool makes me think that the game will be more lethal than some people are used to, but... maybe a system where you can get stabbed in the gut with a vibrosword SHOULD be unusually lethal.

I like that the game isn’t a complete 1:1 clone of Anarchy, and I still agree that overwhelming bookkeeping is a turn-off, though I do wish that some things were a touch more specific.  Healing wounds in the middle of battle is integral enough to the game that I’d like to see at least a baseline.  I suppose, by default, the baseline is one condition pip, but it would be nice to see it in writing.

I am a little surprised that so much of the book is devoted to mech combat, but it is a BT game, so... I feel silly expecting anything otherwise. I’m really excited to try the system, though.  For someone like me, who just doesn’t have time for the grind of TW, it’s a very nice compromise between the old school and Alpha Strike.

The round-robin storytelling from Anarchy is a nice change of pace from other RPGs, but I don’t think it’s for me.  I imagine I would run the game as a traditional system with a traditional GM. 

All-in-all, I’m definitely a fan of the rules at face value.

[Fear Factory]

Having finally had a chance to skim the rules, there’s a lot here to like, but there are a few concerns.

I love that the system is simple. 5E is a wonderful game, but not every RPG needs to strive to lift the architecture from Wizards. The contested roll mechanic is very straightforward and easy enough for anyone to understand. With all due respect to ATOW, character creation, alone, is immeasurably better, in my opinion.  I have yet to make it all the way through ATOW character creation rules without getting bored and deciding to walk away.

I’m not sure how I feel about the health mechanic, but I’m interested in giving it a try. Even with low weapon damage, the low health pool makes me think that the game will be more lethal than some people are used to, but... maybe a system where you can get stabbed in the gut with a vibrosword SHOULD be unusually lethal.

I like that the game isn’t a complete 1:1 clone of Anarchy, and I still agree that overwhelming bookkeeping is a turn-off, though I do wish that some things were a touch more specific.  Healing wounds in the middle of battle is integral enough to the game that I’d like to see at least a baseline.  I suppose, by default, the baseline is one condition pip, but it would be nice to see it in writing.

I am a little surprised that so much of the book is devoted to mech combat, but it is a BT game, so... I feel silly expecting anything otherwise. I’m really excited to try the system, though.  For someone like me, who just doesn’t have time for the grind of TW, it’s a very nice compromise between the old school and Alpha Strike.

The round-robin storytelling from Anarchy is a nice change of pace from other RPGs, but I don’t think it’s for me.  I imagine I would run the game as a traditional system with a traditional GM. 

All-in-all, I’m definitely a fan of the rules at face value.

I have the same reservations. Most of mine come from lethal combat, like AToW, but there are ways to combat it through modifiers. I vaguely remember reading that.

'Mech combat is what I really want to try. I also feel like Destiny could benefit by using hexagons instead of squares, just to fit the theme and give us an excuse to use our blank hex maps.

[Ursus Maior]

What certainly bugs me, is the following (taken from a feedback submission I just filed):

In general, narrative RPGs give gamemasters ideas as to how combining scenarios into campaigns, and how to structure stories longer than one scenario. While MWD wants to be narration oriented, it does not provide ideas how to combine Mission Briefings into a combined narrative (i. e. a campaign). In fact, this game is almost exclusively action and combat centered in its mission briefings, offering hardly any chance to play a narrative-centric game in the BattleTech Universe.

Let me elaborate (this could not be included in the feedback given, since CGL caps those at 500 words).

In my opinion, MWD looks a lot like it is trying to give players a chance to narrate combat missions in the BTU and optionally have them do that with their miniatures. What is utterly lacking, and I find that most strange for a narrative RPG, is the idea of players narrating stories that are not short scenes of combat. Let's take a look at the Mission Briefing "Cold Revenge". It starts in a bar, where the players gathered in a seedy bar. An old rival incites a bar fight between the players and a gang (Scene 1), the cops show up (Scene 2) and on their way home, the enemy springs an ambush on the players (Scene 3).

That's neither a mission nor a story, that's a story seed and as such might take an hour to play out at the table. Two, if you really stretch it out and let the party roll a ton of dice. And it's not even an especially BattleTechy seed. Honestly, this would work in almost every setting, not even restricted to sci-fi. It's not a bad idea, but it's not genuine either.

But what MWD fails here to do, is give the gamemaster and the players (since it's all about player empowerment, remember?) tools to make this a really BattleTechy story. Or a story at all, mot to mention a campaign in one of the densest gaming universes in history.

Now, certainly generic stories are good to draw new players into the BTU. But players new to BattleTech might also be players new to roleplaying in general. And that means, they will have no clue how and what to do.

What I'm aiming at is, this book needs a true "how to tell stories in BattleTech" section. Or at least a section on "how to knit stories around 'Mission Briefings' and tie our player character into the narrative".

Until that is provided, this book is a rules light version for players, who are veterans at both, roleplaying games and BattleTech. Because no newbie will know his or her way.

[Ursus Maior]

Here's a site that may help.
https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home

Thanks, I know the site and took some ideas from it. Still needed a lot of tweaking to match my ideas.

[monbvol]

See, you're still thinking about this as an adversarial game.  That as the GM you are supposed to provide obstacles and the players are supposed to conquer those obstacles.

This is not that game.  If you don't like that, that's okay.

It doesn't matter who provides the obstacles for if there are none to overcome then what is the point of having an RPG?

If there are obstacles/challenges to overcome it inherently creates conflict or an adversarial relationship.

Also let's face it Battletech is a game and setting about confrontation and adversarial relationships.

[Lorcan Nagle]

It doesn't matter who provides the obstacles for if there are none to overcome then what is the point of having an RPG?

If there are obstacles/challenges to overcome it inherently creates conflict or an adversarial relationship.

Also let's face it Battletech is a game and setting about confrontation and adversarial relationships.

The idea of RPGs as a communal storytelling experience has been mainstream for 30 years at this point. It's literally nothing new

[monbvol]

Communal storytelling is fine but I've never seen a good RPG session that didn't have an obstacle to be overcome and that obstacle fail to create an adversarial relationship.

Which I think is being missed, adversarial doesn't have to be toxic or permanent.

[ActionButler]

Obstacles and adversaries are included.  The example hooks even suggest which enemies to use.

The only primary difference is that the GM isn’t solely in control on the enemy NPCs. And even then, only I’d you use the default rules and not the traditional GM route.

[victor_shaw]

Obstacles and adversaries are included.  The example hooks even suggest which enemies to use.

The only primary difference is that the GM isn’t solely in control on the enemy NPCs. And even then, only I’d you use the default rules and not the traditional GM route.

And this is better how?
All you are doing is switching the adversaries relationship from the GM who is use to it to the other players.

As a GM your first duty is to make the adventure challenging but fun, and to that end GM motive and roll fudging is common.
As a player most people look at their character as the hero, so their first duty is to make them that, and I'm sorry to say that a lot of them will do it at the expense of the other PCs.
Give the chance to narrate the story and direct the actions of the NPCs they will take the presser off their own character and move it to someone else.

Example:
The group is a bunch of Ghost Bear mechwarriors out for the Clawing.
They have cornered a Ghost Bear which is wounded but still up.
One of the party is down and unconscious.
Options:
1. Have the Ghost Bear finish off the character.
2 To have the Ghost Bear see the unconscious character as no longer a threat and move to the next PC.

Full GM control; Most good GMs are going to go for option two as it still presents a threat to the PCs and the down character (time is against him/her), but is not killing a character just to kill them.

Destiny Player control turn; I hate to say this but I have seen it way to many time in every game I have played in over the years, but most players are going to go with option 1 to give them a better chance to be the hero and reduce the threat to themselves.

you can say isn't so till your blue in the face, but it happens all the time even when the GM is controlling the game, with examples like players/groups abandoning down/trapped PCs to save themselves.

[Scotty]

It must be exhausting to play in a game where every player is only out for themselves at the expense of other players.  If that's your experience no wonder you don't get how Destiny is supposed to work.

[Fear Factory]

It must be exhausting to play in a game where every player is only out for themselves at the expense of other players.  If that's your experience no wonder you don't get how Destiny is supposed to work.

Personally, I like the idea of being able to bail out party members. I suppose, to balance it out, maybe a GM could require more than one plot points or increase the difficulty to do it.

The saltiness for Destiny is just weird to me.

[victor_shaw]

It must be exhausting to play in a game where every player is only out for themselves at the expense of other players.  If that's your experience no wonder you don't get how Destiny is supposed to work.

I get how Destiny is supposed to work. I just don't think it will work that way at a large number of tables.

See, you're still thinking about this as an adversarial game.  That as the GM you are supposed to provide obstacles and the players are supposed to conquer those obstacles.

This is not that game.  If you don't like that, that's okay.

Look even if you are playing a game of "Space AT&T" (BlackPantsLegion). And you are praying to the HPG while making mechanic rolls to fix it, you are still facing and conquering an obstacle. That is the point of all RPG even this one. If you don't have any adversaries or obstacles to face what is the point of playing?

[Scotty]

You're misunderstanding the distinction I'm trying to make.  The important part is not the presence or absence of obstacles, it's that the narrative focus is on one player (the GM) versus the other players.  Destiny is a fully collaborative effort. Sometimes that means players creating obstacles for themselves that other players assist in conquering.  The GM helps facilitate the process of the game, but isn't the force the players are always trying to beat.  Do you see the difference there?

[ActionButler]

I get how Destiny is supposed to work.

I don’t think you do.

Ignoring the fact that Plot Points aren’t meant for player characters to pull equipment out of hammerspace, the rulebook already had sections about handling players that are out for themselves. The GM serves as the referee instead of a storyteller. They make sure the game is fun and that individual players don’t take turns shitting all over one another.

And if you have that many people trying to murder each other, you might want to look for a better group.

[victor_shaw]

I don’t think you do.

That your opinion and your welcome to it.

Ignoring the fact that Plot Points aren’t meant for player characters to pull equipment out of hammerspace, the rulebook already had sections about handling players that are out for themselves. The GM serves as the referee instead of a storyteller. They make sure the game is fun and that individual players don’t take turns shitting all over one another.

That statement had nothing to do with plot points, it was in response to your statement about just assuming that player have what they need in equipment.
And a references to Edge of the Empire Destiny points doing just that "assuming that player have what they need in equipment"

And if you have that many people trying to murder each other, you might want to look for a better group.

First I never said they were "trying to murder each other". My example was if it was them or another PC they would choose the other PC.
That's not trying kill each other that's looking out for themselves. Selfish, but not homicidal.
You missed the part about this being my experience with multiple groups in many locations over my time gaming (30+ years) not just one group in one location.

[kinwolf]

First I never said they were "trying to murder each other". My example was if it was them or another PC they would choose the other PC.
That's not trying kill each other that's looking out for themselves. Selfish, but not homicidal.
You missed the part about this being my experience with multiple groups in many locations over my time gaming (30+ years) not just one group in one location.

Maybe it's just when you are involved that they choose to save their neck first.   xp 
Honestly, I've RPGed most of my life(although, never in BT) and that's not the behavior I've seen, even in pick-up group in a local con.  There seems to be only one side to a medal for you, the dark one, and that just ain't true.  And Destiny system is, like someone mentioned, nothing new.  The storytelling system would not have survived if it was like you describe

[Arthinas]

If the fate of Mechwarrior Destiny is to be comparable in popularity and appeal to FFG's Star Wars RPG, then I think Mechwarrior Destiny is going to be doing just great, considering how wildly popular FFG's game has been and still is in the cities where I've lived.

I've already seen a number of people both here and elsewhere express new interest in Battletech because of this game, and I've seen my share of long-time Battletech fans express a lot more interest in Destiny than they have in past editions of the RPG, myself included.

[victor_shaw]

Maybe it's just when you are involved that they choose to save their neck first.   xp 
Honestly, I've RPGed most of my life(although, never in BT) and that's not the behavior I've seen, even in pick-up group in a local con.  There seems to be only one side to a medal for you, the dark one, and that just ain't true.  And Destiny system is, like someone mentioned, nothing new.  The storytelling system would not have survived if it was like you describe

How to put this in a way that some people will understand?
Ok, the groups that I have been in are mostly old school D&D, Shadowrun 3rd-5th, AToW, A Song of Ice & Fire, Shatterzone, L5R, Etc. type games.
Since I'm up their in age I tend to play with groups in that age range.
I never once said that this game would not have an audience, just the opposite actually.
My points were;
1. Most of the crunch gamer types I play with would never want to play a game like this.
2. Most of the Mechwarrior: Destiny player types would probably not mix well with the AToW types so I don't see any real crossover happening, thus we wind up with two distinct sub-communities and not one role-playing community just like they have over on the shadowrun side (3 now with 6th edition)
3. If you check the Mechwarrior poll you will see that all the player coming to Destiny (at least according to the poll) are not coming from other versions of Mechwarrior.
4. A large number of any new players this game bring in are going to have a different play style the the high crunch Battletech Board game, so I don't see many crossing over.
5. If Mechwarrior: Destiny fails to bring new players to the core of the community the Battletech Board game, then it is just another side product eating into the already limited resources of CGL.

I am not going to play it because its not my type of game, and have already shopped it around to over 15+ RPG gamers in my area that I play or have played with to see if there is any interest, and got no bites, and before you say I let them read the pdf over and did not just explain it to them. Does that mean it will not work for you or you should not like it, No. It means it doesn't work for me or any of the gamers I know.

P.S. Since I see it thrown around a lot and I don't think some of the people using it know what it means.
Crunch, it the shorted version of the term "Crunching Numbers", so any game where you are add numbers is a crunch game, and games where you are adding multiple numbers from multiple charts for multiple actions/events are high crunch games. It has nothing to do with being rule light or not.

[Bosefius]

***MOD DIRECTIVE***

Everyone needs to settle down. We aren't using warnings, yet, but that's the next step.

[SteelShrike]

1. Most of the crunch gamer types I play with would never want to play a game like this.
2. Most of the Mechwarrior: Destiny player types would probably not mix well with the AToW types so I don't see any real crossover happening, thus we wind up with two distinct sub-communities and not one role-playing community just like they have over on the shadowrun side (3 now with 6th edition)
3. If you check the Mechwarrior poll you will see that all the player coming to Destiny (at least according to the poll) are not coming from other versions of Mechwarrior.
4. A large number of any new players this game bring in are going to have a different play style the the high crunch Battletech Board game, so I don't see many crossing over.
5. If Mechwarrior: Destiny fails to bring new players to the core of the community the Battletech Board game, then it is just another side product eating into the already limited resources of CGL.

I just need to call this out and say I don't see why people need to cross over into Total Warfare or AToW in the first place. Just like I don't see people who have played the MechWarrior games or the recent BattleTech PC game necessarily need to cross over either. No matter what, it's more revenue, more exposure to the universe, and more people to share in the love and passion for what is genuinely been one of the best scifi universes that's existed. There doesn't have to be a "right" way or a "wrong" way to enjoy BattleTech. There doesn't have to be a "core community". People who play BattleTech in its various forms should feel welcome to enjoy it how they prefer to play it. They're all part of the community. Maybe MWD will fail to bring new players to the "core" of the Total Warfare community. Maybe it won't. But what it WILL do is bring new players in general. And I can't see that as anything other than a good thing.

[monbvol]

I just need to call this out and say I don't see why people need to cross over into Total Warfare or AToW in the first place. Just like I don't see people who have played the MechWarrior games or the recent BattleTech PC game necessarily need to cross over either. No matter what, it's more revenue, more exposure to the universe, and more people to share in the love and passion for what is genuinely been one of the best scifi universes that's existed. There doesn't have to be a "right" way or a "wrong" way to enjoy BattleTech. There doesn't have to be a "core community". People who play BattleTech in its various forms should feel welcome to enjoy it how they prefer to play it. They're all part of the community. Maybe MWD will fail to bring new players to the "core" of the Total Warfare community. Maybe it won't. But what it WILL do is bring new players in general. And I can't see that as anything other than a good thing.

You are correct that there shouldn't be a "right" or "wrong" way to play Battletech but I disagree about there not needing to be a core community plus we've already seen how dangerous it is for CGL to guess wrong or divide it's limited resources too thinly.

Now don't get me wrong, I do hope that Destiny works and I fully accept it isn't for me.  I just worry it isn't going to do what CGL hopes and are dividing an already dangerously divided fanbase further.

[Daryk]

I think the issue revolves around what exactly "works" means.

[SteelShrike]

You are correct that there shouldn't be a "right" or "wrong" way to play Battletech but I disagree about there not needing to be a core community plus we've already seen how dangerous it is for CGL to guess wrong or divide it's limited resources too thinly.

Now don't get me wrong, I do hope that Destiny works and I fully accept it isn't for me.  I just worry it isn't going to do what CGL hopes and are dividing an already dangerously divided fanbase further.

That's always the risk, isn't it?

The way I see it, BattleTech has barely changed since its inception back in the 80s. There have been some revisions here and there to the core mechanics. Lots of additions. But nothing truly redefining and groundbreaking.

I meet people here and there out in the wild and the story is almost always the same: they used to play BattleTech, but they don't anymore. They've moved on. The tabletop community has evolved. That "core community" is only going to shrink, not expand. The type of game that Total Warfare is just isn't popular anymore, and not what the current generation of tabletop players generally look for. Heck, I myself am definitely not a newcomer to BattleTech myself, and even I don't want to run games that are bogged down by massive amounts of rules and recordkeeping. Is there an audience for that? Sure. But it's niche. BattleTech is going to have to reinvent itself at some point I think if it's going to continue to survive.

Total Warfare was developed back in 2006. They've since started reprinting those rulebooks again. What that tells me is that a new edition of Total Warfare isn't going to be in the works for the foreseeable future. We've already been using the same rules for the past 13 years, which are largely the same rules that were introduced 35 years ago. If people have been okay playing the same game for that long, I don't see what would stop them from continuing to play it and use their old rules even if a new system ends up being invented to replace it.

I don't want to see Total Warfare go away for those who still want to play it. I'd like to see the rules remain in print or at least be easily accessible should anyone want to dip their toes into it. But eventually, BattleTech's going to have to move on from the 80s. It can't keep being beholden to its 'core community' because eventually, that community is going to go away. They're going to get old. And I don't think BattleTech as it stands now is attracting enough of a younger audience to be able to sustain itself in the next 20 or 30 years.

[victor_shaw]

I just need to call this out and say I don't see why people need to cross over into Total Warfare or AToW in the first place. Just like I don't see people who have played the MechWarrior games or the recent BattleTech PC game necessarily need to cross over either. No matter what, it's more revenue, more exposure to the universe, and more people to share in the love and passion for what is genuinely been one of the best scifi universes that's existed. There doesn't have to be a "right" way or a "wrong" way to enjoy BattleTech. There doesn't have to be a "core community". People who play BattleTech in its various forms should feel welcome to enjoy it how they prefer to play it. They're all part of the community. Maybe MWD will fail to bring new players to the "core" of the Total Warfare community. Maybe it won't. But what it WILL do is bring new players in general. And I can't see that as anything other than a good thing.

"The bad thing" is when it draw away resources form other established areas of the game.
So either it or another area of the game doesn't get a book this cycle because they don't have the manpower to write it.
Or instead of AToW getting a book each year it gets a Book every other year because it shares the RPG resources and manpower slot with MW:D (Not saying this is how it works just an example)
Like it or not most of the community here plays the Battletech board game, that's what the KS was all about.
No matter what you or I think about it, it will get the lion share of the resources and manpower.
Alpha Strike, AToW, MW:D, Etc. are all side products and they will have to split what is left.
The more new products you add to this, the less there is to go around.

As for the community.
First, if you take Shadowrun: Anarchy as an example, it has its own thread on the SR forum most of it players don't really talk to anyone from the 5th edition/6th edition side, and if you go by the support it has gotten (2 books total, maybe a third not sure) it has not really done anything for the community as a whole.
Now Mechwarrior: Destiny has the bonus that there seems to be a decent number of players already in the community that are interested, but we still don't know if it will bring anyone else in from outside. 

Second, the point of these systems are to bring in new players to the battletech line and make money, if they come in buy MW:D and maybe the clan book and that's it then they are not really helping to keep CGL afloat and it become less important to support it. If they come in and start buying boxset, mapset then CGL has more reason to keep supporting it.

Lastly, since both are side products, unlike shadowrun where one is the main product, having two RPG core games is could to lead to issues if the market for it can only support one, and I would hate to see AToW get the shaft just because they can't support both and AToW has not had the chance to get updated/revised. As from what I have been told AToW was on hold for the completion of MW:D.
 

[monbvol]

That's always the risk, isn't it?

The way I see it, BattleTech has barely changed since its inception back in the 80s. There have been some revisions here and there to the core mechanics. Lots of additions. But nothing truly redefining and groundbreaking.

I meet people here and there out in the wild and the story is almost always the same: they used to play BattleTech, but they don't anymore. They've moved on. The tabletop community has evolved. That "core community" is only going to shrink, not expand. The type of game that Total Warfare is just isn't popular anymore, and not what the current generation of tabletop players generally look for. Heck, I myself am definitely not a newcomer to BattleTech myself, and even I don't want to run games that are bogged down by massive amounts of rules and recordkeeping. Is there an audience for that? Sure. But it's niche. BattleTech is going to have to reinvent itself at some point I think if it's going to continue to survive.

Total Warfare was developed back in 2006. They've since started reprinting those rulebooks again. What that tells me is that a new edition of Total Warfare isn't going to be in the works for the foreseeable future. We've already been using the same rules for the past 13 years, which are largely the same rules that were introduced 35 years ago. If people have been okay playing the same game for that long, I don't see what would stop them from continuing to play it and use their old rules even if a new system ends up being invented to replace it.

I don't want to see Total Warfare go away for those who still want to play it. I'd like to see the rules remain in print or at least be easily accessible should anyone want to dip their toes into it. But eventually, BattleTech's going to have to move on from the 80s. It can't keep being beholden to its 'core community' because eventually, that community is going to go away. They're going to get old. And I don't think BattleTech as it stands now is attracting enough of a younger audience to be able to sustain itself in the next 20 or 30 years.

The screwed up part of this?

I completely agree with that sentiment with one caveat.  You still need a core community, even if that core community changes/evolves over time.

Which I think is the problem that you touch on, CGL and the old guard of Battletech aren't likely to make such changes or allow Battletech to survive making the changes that I completely agree need to be made.

[victor_shaw]

That's always the risk, isn't it?

The way I see it, BattleTech has barely changed since its inception back in the 80s. There have been some revisions here and there to the core mechanics. Lots of additions. But nothing truly redefining and groundbreaking.

I meet people here and there out in the wild and the story is almost always the same: they used to play BattleTech, but they don't anymore. They've moved on. The tabletop community has evolved. That "core community" is only going to shrink, not expand. The type of game that Total Warfare is just isn't popular anymore, and not what the current generation of tabletop players generally look for. Heck, I myself am definitely not a newcomer to BattleTech myself, and even I don't want to run games that are bogged down by massive amounts of rules and recordkeeping. Is there an audience for that? Sure. But it's niche. BattleTech is going to have to reinvent itself at some point I think if it's going to continue to survive.

Total Warfare was developed back in 2006. They've since started reprinting those rulebooks again. What that tells me is that a new edition of Total Warfare isn't going to be in the works for the foreseeable future. We've already been using the same rules for the past 13 years, which are largely the same rules that were introduced 35 years ago. If people have been okay playing the same game for that long, I don't see what would stop them from continuing to play it and use their old rules even if a new system ends up being invented to replace it.

I don't want to see Total Warfare go away for those who still want to play it. I'd like to see the rules remain in print or at least be easily accessible should anyone want to dip their toes into it. But eventually, BattleTech's going to have to move on from the 80s. It can't keep being beholden to its 'core community' because eventually, that community is going to go away. They're going to get old. And I don't think BattleTech as it stands now is attracting enough of a younger audience to be able to sustain itself in the next 20 or 30 years.

And I have hear this for years.
Battletech is dead, there is no community for it, it needs to change with the times .
And then we get a 11,000+ person, 2.5+ million dollar kick-starter.

[SteelShrike]

"The bad thing" is when it draw away resources form other established areas of the game.
So either it or another area of the game doesn't get a book this cycle because they don't have the manpower to write it.
Or instead of AToW getting a book each year it gets a Book every other year because it shares the RPG resources and manpower slot with MW:D (Not saying this is how it works just an example)
Like it or not most of the community here plays the Battletech board game, that's what the KS was all about.
No matter what you or I think about it, it will get the lion share of the resources and manpower.
Alpha Strike, AToW, MW:D, Etc. are all side products and they will have to split what is left.
The more new products you add to this, the less there is to go around.

If MWD sells well, brings in a new crowd, and CGL fails to capitalize on it, that's just bad business management. If the business fails, it'll be due to the harsh realities of how the market works. I don't think sticking to a 13 year old system is going to change that either, as I said above. They need to use the money to hire more people in order to support the new product. If they instead take that money and dump it back into Total Warfare... well that'd just be silly. That's not where the money is coming from.

And in the event CGL tanks because they tried to do something new and failed to follow up on it (which I think we can all agree, we don't want to happen), BattleTech has survived what... 3 or 4 company transitions at this point? It won't die. The recent success of the Kickstarter and the PC game proves that there's a significant market out there who still wants to see the game live on.

And yes, that Kickstarter was amazing. But a successful company shouldn't have to resort to Kickstarter to keep itself afloat indefinitely either.

EDIT: I never said BattleTech was dead either. Far from it. But you can't deny that the player base has shrunk significantly over the decades. And it's probably going to continue shrinking unless something changes. 11,000 people sounds like a lot. But how many people are playing Warhammer? X-Wing? Other tabletop miniature games? I ask this honestly because even I don't actually know the numbers, but I'm willing to bet it's a lot more.

I completely agree with that sentiment with one caveat.  You still need a core community, even if that core community changes/evolves over time.

I think I can agree with that actually, too. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. The core community now isn't going to be the same 10, 20, or 30 years from now. And I think that's perfectly okay and natural.