Author Topic: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion  (Read 34611 times)

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6316
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #270 on: 20 February 2019, 17:35:52 »
And yet, you seem to speak to how you understand the why's and werefores of how/why the rules are that way. I look to what was prevelent in the media (Macros, Gundam etc) around the time came out, and what I believe was the reasoning behind the rules as they are.

Does it make my view right? No. Does it make your view right? No

It is what it is, and at the end of the day, I suspect no matter how much we wish and pray upon, CGL is beholdened to a liscense agreement to work within the rules as they are (as purchased by TOPPS) and while they may add to or tweak said rules, they cannot rebuild into an entirely new set of rules.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #271 on: 20 February 2019, 17:38:22 »
The mechanics are meant to give some meaning, or it’s a pure math exercise and not a game.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #272 on: 20 February 2019, 17:54:46 »
The mechanics are meant to give some meaning, or it’s a pure math exercise and not a game.

Of course!  The mechanics are the vehicle by which we (the players) explore the narrative that we (still the players) set out to establish.  But they shouldn't take the place of the narrative itself.

And yet, you seem to speak to how you understand the why's and werefores of how/why the rules are that way. I look to what was prevelent in the media (Macros, Gundam etc) around the time came out, and what I believe was the reasoning behind the rules as they are.

You may notice a theme to my posts: the player comes first.  Everything I suggest is, while certainly not prefect or even necessarily good, ultimately aimed at improving the player's engagement with the game.  This is also where BattleTech categorically fails as an engaging game: the player does not come first, the mechanics do.  Fixing that should be the ultimate goal.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Apocal

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 547
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #273 on: 20 February 2019, 18:04:18 »
I've stayed out of this, but I want to add something in breifly.

The big problem with MoS for cluster weapons is that it makes them more powerful (hunh?!) or less powerful. 

The biggest thing with Battletech is the to-hit roll being pass/fail. You make the shot or you didn't.  This applies to PPCs or missiles.  But with an MoS system, you are either penalizing missiles (for needing MoS >0 for average damage), which often shoot at longer ranges anyways (and higher TNs).   Or you use MoF, where even if you "miss" by 1 or 2, some still hit.  The problem is that this gives cluster weapons a "pulse bonus", where you can shotgun spam it, knowing you almost can't hit on a 12, but if you get 10s you can still deal damage to that light mech. This unbalances everything else, as cluster weapons now become more powerful (Which isn't a bad thing for IS LRMs, but for SRMs, LBX, and clan weapons, it is not good).

Oh I know. I didn't think it was important since, as you said, pulse weapons are already in the game and we have precedent for cluster hitters getting to-hit bonuses like LBXs and HAGs against aircraft.

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #274 on: 20 February 2019, 18:40:14 »
And while on the one hand I agree, on the other hand it loses a lot of the 'hand-waveium' behind the scene rationals for such cluster rolls in the first place:

Consider: Needing a 12 means the 'Lock-on window' is extremely tight, and by rolling a 12 means I had fire right as lock was achieved. GREAT, now the cluster roll is the representation of the Anime-eque, missiles screaming in, some hitting a tree branch, the mech ducking and jiving, etc, whatever head-cannon visual you want to give it. So, sure maybe it was a lucky shot I barely got off, and maybe your 'mech pilot was looking for his dropped Bon-Jovi 'Slippery When Wet' retro '80's 8-trak cassette while standing in the open?

On the flip side...I need a 2 to hit (for whatever reason) and I fire, but (hand-wavium), their was an internal glitch in the optics of the missiles, or they happened to be loaded up with Windows 3.1 Operation system and don't have the current Updates and patchs to DRIVERS, and as a result most of the missiles  simply sputter and fall useless to the ground mere meters infront of me. Sure, I had Solid LOCK-ON TONES for the Weapons system, but the missiles were total garbage, and only a few of them actually had the true lock on.

THESE are the stories we tell around my gaming table as to explain the Crap-tacular vs spectacular cluster rolls. And turning them to an 'average always' MoS/MoF aspect based on my rolls takes a lot away from the narrative that is the game.

I get what you’re saying, I just don’t understand why you can’t do the same thing and tell the same stories with the MoS mechanism (unless we are imagining different mechanisms).

Need a 3 to hit because your target isn’t moving and you roll a 12? There’s your Macross Missile Masacre.  Dozens of warheads raining down on the unsuspecting target, stripping away armor and peppering the surrounding area.

Roll snake-eyes instead? There’s mid-battle your firmware upgrade.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Apocal

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 547
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #275 on: 20 February 2019, 18:44:36 »
I get what you’re saying, I just don’t understand why you can’t do the same thing and tell the same stories with the MoS mechanism (unless we are imagining different mechanisms).

Need a 3 to hit because your target isn’t moving and you roll a 12? There’s your Macross Missile Masacre.  Dozens of warheads raining down on the unsuspecting target, stripping away armor and peppering the surrounding area.

Roll snake-eyes instead? There’s mid-battle your firmware upgrade.

If I understand him correctly, he wants the full range of outcomes available on every hit. Other people accept limiting that range on both bounds in favor of a shorter time between decisions and consequences.

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6316
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #276 on: 20 February 2019, 19:15:25 »
I get what you’re saying, I just don’t understand why you can’t do the same thing and tell the same stories with the MoS mechanism (unless we are imagining different mechanisms).

Need a 3 to hit because your target isn’t moving and you roll a 12? There’s your Macross Missile Masacre.  Dozens of warheads raining down on the unsuspecting target, stripping away armor and peppering the surrounding area.

Roll snake-eyes instead? There’s mid-battle your firmware upgrade.

Except...Battletech is not like D&D. Rules mechanics wise there is no difference between rolling a 2 or a 12.

If I need a 13+ to hit, no matter how many 12's I roll, I still miss. If I need a 0 to hit (due to skills, modifiers, etc) rolling a snake-eyes does not equal a miss, I still hit.

D&D and similar games have the Critical Success/Failure rule, Battletech does not. Hence the example.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #277 on: 20 February 2019, 19:23:43 »
i thought i had tacitly agreed that vehicles complicate things but i can see how that was missed. so, yes, vehicles, especially applying crits, can be a massive pain - especially since in a lot of cases, there aren't weapons in the sides so side crits more often than not loop back to crew stunned. I had to implement a specific die marker just to track it so we didn't lose count. I also for the life of me never remember the specifics of commander hit, driver hit, etc. i had to cut back on the number of infernos i used as well because a shower of those quickly grew cumbersome.

the problem though is that these are extensions of the cumbersome rules that we've been talking about. it's like noticing a rash that spread -  this new outbreak is just a continuance of what was already a problem.

Abou and I have discussed how to do this. Most of it is in the BattleTech 2.0 thread we made. It's possible to make it faster and easier to deal with. Haven't tested this yet, but I'm confident it'll be a lot better, mostly because it's a simplified compromise between the old and new rules.

I really don't want to post more house rules, please delete this if you think it's necessary, but this is an example of where some of that grit was just way too much.

The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

AdmiralObvious

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #278 on: 20 February 2019, 20:16:33 »
Going further into the weeds, if you wanted to, you could add the fumble and success RPG rules. Though this would somewhat dramatically decrease th number of "normal" numbers by two in the current system (that's a little more than 15%).

2 fumbles and should be a guaranteed miss. 12 is a miracle and at minimum means a success where you should have ordinarily failed miserably. You might need to roll a 30 with all modifiers, but if you roll a 12, you succeed (or at least don't fail).
« Last Edit: 20 February 2019, 20:22:27 by AdmiralObvious »

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #279 on: 20 February 2019, 20:48:31 »
No, we actually do need to stay out of the weeds, otherwise the conversation has to go to the Fan Rules section. And, so it doesn’t seem like I’m trying to get the last word in, I’ve removed my previous post.

Though anyone is free to continue the discussion in a new thread in Fan Rules. Like I said a few posts ago, I normally don’t care for MOS systems, but I can *sort of* see it working here.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6316
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #280 on: 20 February 2019, 20:50:28 »
Hey what happened to your Response to my Post Mr Butler?

I was gonna respond, but now I can't as I don;t want to put words into your mouth. :(
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #281 on: 20 February 2019, 21:09:56 »
See my last post, Neon.

As a fan of the game, I really love being a part of these discussions, but as a mod, it just isn’t right for me to go around blathering on about alternate rules and then saying “but for real, guys, we shouldn’t talk about alternate rules”. The last thing in the world that I want is to seem like I’m trying to skate around the rules that I’m here to remind folks of.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #282 on: 20 February 2019, 21:38:40 »
I guess, philosophically for me, I want the rules to aid my immersion in the game not hinder it. As the rules stand now I feel like they hinder it and could be adjusted to give "essentially" the same results (I changed from exactly because you were correct, it would not mimic the exact results. However, it would give a fair summation of them over time which I would be more than happy with). The only things that would really be impacted would be BV values, which are easy to change.

Catalyst just seems to be married to the idea that the rules "must not change". Not sure why.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #283 on: 20 February 2019, 22:28:21 »
And here's where I swoop in to half-skate around the rules instead. :P

Everyone loves controversial subjects, right?  Well here's one for you, conveniently proven to at least be halfway reasonable by the PC game: non-simultaneous turns.

Getting into the nitty gritty of it is obviously for the fan rules board and not here, but I think it has some very favorable advantages, namely:

1) Player engagement and interactivity.  Obviously this is one that I harp on a lot, but it's really evident when games resolve by-unit instead of by-force.  The simultaneous nature of phases in BattleTech means that especially during the movement phase unless you are currently in the process of ****** up (even through no fault of your own, like trying to stand and failing) then there's not actually much happening.  There's strategy, of course, but it's the strategy of a chess match, denying moves to your opponent and realizing good positions.  It's a slow burn.  And then everything of import happens between the shooting and physical phases, typically in one (relatively slowly resolved) swoop.  And then after that it's back to the slow burn.  It's very much a game of highs and lows, but the lows vastly outnumber the highs.

When each unit moves and shoots in the same activation, the strategic calculus can change at the drop of a hat, regardless of what part of the turn it is.  All players have to be engaged, either because their turn can come up at any moment, or because what they were planning on doing radically shifts.  It's less good (but still an improvement) in 4+ player games particularly where one team has more players than another, but the immediate engagement is still there through other moves.  Why that's a bonus: I played in a campaign game less than a month ago with four players and six enemies.  One turn, I was the first move in a turn we lost initiative.  The next time I was required to think about the game was almost 15 minutes later when the shooting started.  In between I could have happily zoned out and missed nothing of consequence.  That's not possible in a game with immediate feedback on all moves.

2) Ambushes can actually happen.  What happens in an attempted ambush in BattleTech?  Either you invent a new rule that says the victims can't shoot or have some major penalty, or you modify existing hidden unit rules to make it so that the ambush can actually happen.  Because if you don't, your "ambush" is just a non-standard deployment zone, and the simultaneous shooting phase means nothing resembling an actual ambush happens.

Tactical ambushes, clever moves you can set up for your opponent to walk into suddenly have an immediate emotional payoff.  In regular BattleTech, the move completes and your opponent gets a brief moment of "oh, damn" and then it's on to the rest of the phase and then the shooting phase, potentially minutes where the emotional payoff - on both sides - of a properly executed ambush have time to fizzle.  Meanwhile, when the ambush becomes apparent and then completes in the same fluid motion, the effect is immediate.  The Berserker casually strolling through a level 3 building to end up one hex behind your <insert 'Mech here> and then stand there twiddling its thumbs until the physical combat phase is "That's BattleTech!  Oh well, sorry <'Mech>".  The Berserker casually strolling through a level 3 building to end up one hex behind your <insert 'Mech here> and then immediately cut it in half without missing a beat registers closer to "HOLY SHIT".  There's no fizzle (unless it misses, in which case the payoff is still immediate, just in the form of good-natured mockery instead of mortal terror).

3) Light 'Mechs retain a use well into the late-game years.  A fast 'Mech with some pulse lasers in the 3100s is just begging to get beaten by something meaner than it is because it can never, no matter how hard it tries, pull off that magic backstab and get away scot-free without some significant help.  By itself a light is a nuisance, they only become dangerous when used in groups or as part of a larger Lance to make sure that it isn't focused on.  It becomes wholly dependent on a lot of things, not least of which are your opponent either not winning initiative or your opponent deliberately ignoring the backstabber.  Both of those things can be mitigated, but neither of them can truly be avoided with skill - it's all either luck or your opponent's mistake.

I love Light 'Mechs.  In a non-simultaneous game, a Light 'Mech goes for the kill at the end of a turn, striking from behind.  It doesn't score a kill (but the enemy absolutely experiences that moment of pants-shitting terror), but unlike in a simultaneous game, the 'Mech it lit up doesn't get the perfectly-informed opportunity to flip arms and make it really pay.  The next turn, the backstabber sprints away, unharmed.  Or potentially very harmed, if the opponent is able to respond with another well-placed move.  It's now a game of play-counterplay, cat and mouse, and potentially of honest-to-god suspense.  Cat and mouse games as they stand right now are more frequently than not "who won initiative this turn?" and that's the end of it.

There are definitely downsides, but this post is also really long, and it's not really a forum post if it admits weakness, right? :D
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

AdmiralObvious

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #284 on: 21 February 2019, 00:57:20 »
At the fundamental level, I really don't like the PC game. For a variety of reasons of course.

I really don't like the way the game plays in the move and shoot before the the opponent has an opportunity to even move or shoot.

This isn't relevant for heavier Mechs getting shot at by Lighter Mechs, but when a light Mech gets alpha struck because the game decided "you walked into an ambush" against an assault which happened to be on the enemy roster, you're toast.

It does make the game play a bit faster, but since you're on a PC, you don't even need to roll the dice on each action. It would be better for tactical play and positioning (in my opinion) if the PC game stuck with the current BT rules. The way it currently plays is fundamentally different, and I don't like it at all compared to the board game.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 36956
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #285 on: 21 February 2019, 04:41:32 »
Non-simultaneity is one of the reasons I gave up on the PC game.  It's not necessarily a bad game, but it's not BattleTech.  Being able to eliminate assault 'mechs with no significant damage taken in return just feels wrong.

Apocal

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 547
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #286 on: 21 February 2019, 04:48:46 »
3) Light 'Mechs retain a use well into the late-game years.  A fast 'Mech with some pulse lasers in the 3100s is just begging to get beaten by something meaner than it is because it can never, no matter how hard it tries, pull off that magic backstab and get away scot-free without some significant help.  By itself a light is a nuisance, they only become dangerous when used in groups or as part of a larger Lance to make sure that it isn't focused on.  It becomes wholly dependent on a lot of things, not least of which are your opponent either not winning initiative or your opponent deliberately ignoring the backstabber.  Both of those things can be mitigated, but neither of them can truly be avoided with skill - it's all either luck or your opponent's mistake.

I love Light 'Mechs.  In a non-simultaneous game, a Light 'Mech goes for the kill at the end of a turn, striking from behind.  It doesn't score a kill (but the enemy absolutely experiences that moment of pants-shitting terror), but unlike in a simultaneous game, the 'Mech it lit up doesn't get the perfectly-informed opportunity to flip arms and make it really pay.  The next turn, the backstabber sprints away, unharmed.  Or potentially very harmed, if the opponent is able to respond with another well-placed move.  It's now a game of play-counterplay, cat and mouse, and potentially of honest-to-god suspense.  Cat and mouse games as they stand right now are more frequently than not "who won initiative this turn?" and that's the end of it.

There are definitely downsides, but this post is also really long, and it's not really a forum post if it admits weakness, right? :D

I don't believe light mechs eventually evolving away from their traditional backstabbing role is necessarily a bad thing. It seems to me that it matches more or less the way you had some truly light, speedy tanks fielded early in WW2 that were pushed aside the moment everyone converged on the better armed and protected mediums and heavies as proper fighting units while lights were used for scouting, screening, escort, etc.

Anyway, I'm in agreement with most of what you wrote otherwise, I just think that focusing on keeping lights relevant as backstabbers might require far more wide-ranging changes, although something with initiative would help.

At the fundamental level, I really don't like the PC game. For a variety of reasons of course.

I really don't like the way the game plays in the move and shoot before the the opponent has an opportunity to even move or shoot.

This isn't relevant for heavier Mechs getting shot at by Lighter Mechs, but when a light Mech gets alpha struck because the game decided "you walked into an ambush" against an assault which happened to be on the enemy roster, you're toast.

It does make the game play a bit faster, but since you're on a PC, you don't even need to roll the dice on each action. It would be better for tactical play and positioning (in my opinion) if the PC game stuck with the current BT rules. The way it currently plays is fundamentally different, and I don't like it at all compared to the board game.

Well, if you lose initiative and don't move defensively as a light against an assault on the table, you're probably toast as well, at least outside of the introtech era.

Tabletop's initiative and phase system would be awful for a PC turn-based tactics game. Suicide bombing strategies are too easy to use, unless otherwise mitigated by other mechanics aad even addressing that, the last-mover advantage on the TT is far too strong -- to the point where at least one poster here openly stated that they concede the game if they lose initiative rolls too many times in a row -- for the relative dearth of player means to influence it. Mechanics so influential as that have to be paired with meaningful interaction in the PC turn-based tactics world. I'm aware there are ways to tilt initiative rolls your way if you use RPG skills, play with quirks or use certain tricks in force composition, but there is no meaningful play/counter-play involved: more is better, always.

It works on the table, but in a PC game -- especially one with PvP aspects -- it would very quickly become a race to field the Cyclops with the meta pilot build stacking initiative bonuses atop that, if at all possible. A single optima is poor game design and there aren't many reasons to do it when you have a computer to crunch numbers and handle record-keeping.

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #287 on: 21 February 2019, 09:05:35 »
For initiative I've seen some games where the loser gets a +1 to the die roll for every consecutive turn of initiative they lose after the first. It's probably the most important aspect of the TT game.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19768
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #288 on: 21 February 2019, 09:06:48 »
to the point where at least one poster here openly stated that they concede the game if they lose initiative rolls too many times in a row

you haven't really played battletech until you've lost initiative fourteen times in a row. twice. yes everyone laughed at me.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #289 on: 21 February 2019, 09:26:52 »
you haven't really played battletech until you've lost initiative fourteen times in a row. twice. yes everyone laughed at me.

It's more common that you think...

 :D
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19768
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #290 on: 21 February 2019, 09:27:50 »
good. i don't deserve to be alone in this miserable club

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10168
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #291 on: 21 February 2019, 10:00:53 »
It's more common that you think...

 :D

Heck we have an admin famed for it.
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

abou

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1877
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #292 on: 21 February 2019, 12:20:10 »
Famous last words that were thankfully not from me.

"Pft... I can beat a four."

*rolls three*

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #293 on: 21 February 2019, 13:58:59 »
Famous last words that were thankfully not from me.

"Pft... I can beat a four."

*rolls three*

Or me.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Charlie Tango

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6494
  • I'm feeling a little sketchy...
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #294 on: 22 February 2019, 10:38:23 »

You may notice a theme to my posts: the player comes first.  Everything I suggest is, while certainly not prefect or even necessarily good, ultimately aimed at improving the player's engagement with the game.  This is also where BattleTech categorically fails as an engaging game: the player does not come first, the mechanics do.  Fixing that should be the ultimate goal.

Actually, no, in your method the mechanics come first,  not the players.  The "I needed a 12, roll box cars, get the full spread on the missile table and take the guy out" are the stories that get told on down the line,  those are the moments of joy or frustration that make the game *more * than just a mechanical numbers exercise.  Things like MoS/MoF rules take that away.    The joy in the telling of things has been lost I think because we don't have fiction to give us examples to relate to what's going on in the tabletop game. Back when I wrote a few stories of my own,  I LOVED writing 'Mech combat because it was fun in taking what happens on the tabletop and translating that into something that was exciting and interesting to read.  I think that has been lost,  and I think that if we as players incorporated more of that back into the game, you'd have more engangement.


And one more comment on "the game forces you to memorize tables" argument:  I've been playing for 30 years at this point and I couldn't (without looking) give you the Front/Back hit chart.   I've never been forced to memorize a table to play this game
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature.
There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games."
  
-- William S. Burroughs

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #295 on: 22 February 2019, 10:46:48 »
I'd have to respectfully disagree on some points. The story of the "I needed a 12" get's told simply because that is the current mechanism by which amazing results happen. If there was some other mechanic that derived improbable but entertaining results I think we'd tell those stories as well. As to connecting with the game because of the fiction. I totally agree.
Actually, no, in your method the mechanics come first,  not the players.  The "I needed a 12, roll box cars, get the full spread on the missile table and take the guy out" are the stories that get told on down the line,  those are the moments of joy or frustration that make the game *more * than just a mechanical numbers exercise.  Things like MoS/MoF rules take that away.    The joy in the telling of things has been lost I think because we don't have fiction to give us examples to relate to what's going on in the tabletop game. Back when I wrote a few stories of my own,  I LOVED writing 'Mech combat because it was fun in taking what happens on the tabletop and translating that into something that was exciting and interesting to read.  I think that has been lost,  and I think that if we as players incorporated more of that back into the game, you'd have more engangement.


And one more comment on "the game forces you to memorize tables" argument:  I've been playing for 30 years at this point and I couldn't (without looking) give you the Front/Back hit chart.   I've never been forced to memorize a table to play this game

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #296 on: 22 February 2019, 10:52:40 »
I wonder how impactful changing the Medium and Long range mods to +1, +2 would be? Aside from BV, I mean. Obviously that would change. I don't think typical Long range shots hitting about 25% of the time would necessarily be bad. I suppose Pulses would need to get reduced to -1 at the same time but...

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19768
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #297 on: 22 February 2019, 11:01:34 »
+1 at medium also has an impact on short range weapons. 9s turning into and 8s turning into 7s is a big deal. the impact on med lasers and AC/20s is pretty powerful.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #298 on: 22 February 2019, 12:37:29 »
Movement is the biggest offender. Just do flat TMM per mode. No more movement dice and having to count hexes for the best TMM.

Change attacker modifiers to offset flat TMM average:

Stand Still -1
Walking +0
Running +1
Jumping +2

Choose movement mode and move using normal rules. TMM generated is for the mode, not total hexes moved. So if your walk rating is 7 it generates a +3 mod.

No TMM is generated for walking if you end your turn in the same hex. Running applies to the same hex plus adjacent hexes.

This is a big help for those who play fast units.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #299 on: 22 February 2019, 14:13:12 »
Actually, no, in your method the mechanics come first,  not the players.  The "I needed a 12, roll box cars, get the full spread on the missile table and take the guy out" are the stories that get told on down the line,  those are the moments of joy or frustration that make the game *more * than just a mechanical numbers exercise.

While I certainly respect your ability to enjoy this particular scenario, the unspoken assertion included in this quote is wrong.  I don't mean "your opinion is terrible" wrong  (your opinion is not terrible), I mean factually incorrect.

The players had nothing to do with that series of rolls.  Literally nothing.  Dice rolls are not deterministic.  No player influenced the cluster roll.  No players had anything to do with boxcar appearing on the dice. No player had the slightest damn bit of influence over how that result played out.  The moment the player decided to fire a weapon at a target, their role in the story ends until the next movement phase.

You are conflating (not deliberately, I suspect) the idea of an impressive result with player engagement.  Players can absolutely be excited by improbable outcomes, but the easy logical pitfall to stumble into is that it matters how that result was achieved, that the process by which BattleTech arrives at the result "all the missiles, good kill" is unique and that being unique is engaging.  It doesn't, and it isn't.  You're viewing it through the lenses of "this has made me feel engaged for 30 years, therefore it must be engaging" and put bluntly the players that can save BattleTech are not you.  Or me.  Or anyone else that has been playing BattleTech for decades.

Player engagement is when a player is able to make decisions that meaningfully impact the game and ensuring those decisions are both frequent enough and impactful enough that the player feels like their involvement in the game is both meaningful and entertaining.

If the answer to "Can I write a program to do this without the player's input?" is "yes", then in a player driven game we should strive to make that process as quick and easy as possible so the player can spend more time playing the game and less time manually cranking the simulations gears.

(P.s. I wasn't arguing in favor of MOS/MOF anything)
« Last Edit: 22 February 2019, 14:14:48 by Scotty »
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.