AToW "2nd edition" or MechWarrior 6th edition.

[victor_shaw]

Except that you almost never get enough suggestions to get over the threshold of a lot of them, so it's always a choice. Meanwhile, in point buy, I can just look at the list of traits and skills, review the character concept, and move on accordingly. Whatever quirks and hooks occur to me and look doable get in, and it doesn't take a 5+ step process with a narrow range of possible "get into trouble" options to do it.

I have to agree.
That and the fact that the system punishes you for not varying your Real life paths but you can do just about the same thing with the point buy system without the lost points. its non intuitive and is just a holdover from 3rd edition that was fine there because you did not have point cost involved, but with AToW you are spending points for the paths so why would you need to have this in place?

[Daryk]

The variation is a feature, not a bug I think.  And you can take as many Civilian Job modules as you want without penalty.

[victor_shaw]

The variation is a feature, not a bug I think.  And you can take as many Civilian Job modules as you want without penalty.

It's a bug not a feature. It's a relic of the previous systems protections against power-gaming. Since that system had no points assigned to the Life path system they used the No traits/No attributes threshold and -1 to event rolls limits to the stacking of multiple bonus. The problem is that AToW uses a modified point system that already has the traits/attributes total added to the cost of the path, so there is no need to keep these limits from the previous systems. So there is no way a unneeded penalty is a feature.

[victor_shaw]

The major issues with the life path system as presented in AToW is that it is not really a system at all. It is just the point buy system with added unnecessary penalties, pretending to be a separate system. When the system uses (on average) only 35-40% of the available points, then through optimization refunds another 25% of spent point it is doing nothing to help make a character except waste your time doing math.

If they truly wanted to create a template system to assist with more logical expenditure of points and provide suggestions, all they would have to do is list only points spent to fully reach the desired level for required skills/attributes/traits and then have a suggested skills/attributes/traits list for ones that are optional. They should also get rid of the penalties as you are already spending the point for them and not getting them for free as was the issue from the previous edition that led to the penalties in the first place.

[victor_shaw]

While I'm at it.

Another issues I have is with the Phenotype modifiers in all versions of the game (except 1st since it doesn't have them). While I am fine with the idea that they get a boost to the Attribute due to the enhanced genes, the concept that they can push the Attribute over human maximums seems wrong. While genetic manipulation could foreseeably allow for a higher % of olympic grade athletes, you are not going to create super soldiers with greater strength, reflexes, etc. then is possible at human maximums. while I can see an Elemental looking like a body builder, this is still an achievable level for a normal human and not some special thing only Elemental can achieve. If you are trying to tell me that Elemental are bugger then this, I fine that hard to believe as.

[victor_shaw]

The variation is a feature, not a bug I think.  And you can take as many Civilian Job modules as you want without penalty.

Only because it adds no Attributes or traits.

[Daryk]

That's... the point?  ???

A "normal" life only involves adding skills over time.  Only extraordinary risk yields extraordinary rewards.  I walked past a mortar crater (that wasn't there on my way home the previous night) on my way to work one day.  That round could have very easily hit my CHU instead.  And the night those SOBs shelled the base twice instead of the usual (up until then) once?  I had to tell my then five-year old daughter "I have to go... tell your mother I love her."

Those are experiences you really only learn from once.  I don't fault TPTB for that decision.  Does it complicate character building?  Sure, a bit.  But not that much, really.  Building a person SHOULD be complicated.  People are complicated.  Plots for a tabletop game's war machines?  Maybe not so much.  But if you want characters that are engaging in a personal way, it should be a little harder.  The optimization process increases the number of decisions that have to be made in a way that I think increases engagement.  It seems you disagree, and that's totally valid.  It comes down to a disagreement over ends, rather than means.

[monbvol]

As someone who's probably spent most of their adult 'real life' closer to ne'er-do-well than civilian job I do tend to agree at the very least the modules need some re-working so they're not so punishing to repeat.

[Daryk]

I think that's the conversation TPTB are looking for, honestly...

[monbvol]

*nod*

And maybe seeing if there is a way to make character creation not so much of a chore without sacrificing too much of the investment/attachment too while we're all at it.

[Daryk]

The chore/investment balance is exactly the issue, I think.  Glad to be having this conversation with you!  :thumbsup:

[victor_shaw]

That's... the point?  ???

A "normal" life only involves adding skills over time.  Only extraordinary risk yields extraordinary rewards.  I walked past a mortar crater (that wasn't there on my way home the previous night) on my way to work one day.  That round could have very easily hit my CHU instead.  And the night those SOBs shelled the base twice instead of the usual (up until then) once?  I had to tell my then five-year old daughter "I have to go... tell your mother I love her."

Those are experiences you really only learn from once.  I don't fault TPTB for that decision.  Does it complicate character building?  Sure, a bit.  But not that much, really.  Building a person SHOULD be complicated.  People are complicated.  Plots for a tabletop game's war machines?  Maybe not so much.  But if you want characters that are engaging in a personal way, it should be a little harder.  The optimization process increases the number of decisions that have to be made in a way that I think increases engagement.  It seems you disagree, and that's totally valid.  It comes down to a disagreement over ends, rather than means.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am fine with not getting the Attributes/Traits on multiple passes. I don't agree with having to pay for something you are not getting. An Added "Additional Passes Cost: XXX" Entry is all that is needed to fix this.

As for the rest, I don't think the system works because it does nothing that the pure point buy system can't due with just a suggested Traits/Attribute/Skill entry under each of the path names. Then there is the Issues that by the rules of Optimization all Negative traits have to be brought to the next lowest level. So why have a Glass Jaw (-50) in there. You need -300 to reach the only viable level and it is not an option to remove it by the Optimization rules so its not a suggestion as you stated.

Again the rules fall apart when you then have to take -250 points just to pay 300 points for Toughness just to cancel it out, when you could have just paid the 50 points to remove it.

[Carbon Elasmobranch]

While I'm at it.

Another issues I have is with the Phenotype modifiers in all versions of the game (except 1st since it doesn't have them). While I am fine with the idea that they get a boost to the Attribute due to the enhanced genes, the concept that they can push the Attribute over human maximums seems wrong. While genetic manipulation could foreseeably allow for a higher % of olympic grade athletes, you are not going to create super soldiers with greater strength, reflexes, etc. then is possible at human maximums. while I can see an Elemental looking like a body builder

Quibble: They'd be closer to World's Strongest Human contenders. Body builder implies a considerable degree of starvation and dehydration to allow the muscles to pop out so prominently, and while they do have to keep their diet in check in order to avoid altering the suits so often, they probably eat and drink more than most body builders do.

this is still an achievable level for a normal human and not some special thing only Elemental can achieve. If you are trying to tell me that Elemental are bugger then this, I fine that hard to believe as.

They're commonly over 250 cm tall (at least if the sample characters of MW3 are to be believed), so the data for real world performance is likely rather sparse for comparisons.

[Daryk]

You don't need Toughness to buy off Glass Jaw last I checked.

[victor_shaw]

You don't need Toughness to buy off Glass Jaw last I checked.

Just check it last night again before I posted.
Since Optimization does not allow you to remove Negative Traits, only extend them to next level (EX. -50 Glass Jaw to -300 Glass Jaw) the only way to remove it is to buy the opposing Positive Trait Toughness.

[monbvol]

I'll admit that is a particularly obnoxious part of the optional optimization rules and I know I'd never enforce that extra step and be fine with just paying the 50 XP and being done with the Glass Jaw.

[victor_shaw]

I'll admit that is a particularly obnoxious part of the optional optimization rules and I know I'd never enforce that extra step and be fine with just paying the 50 XP and being done with the Glass Jaw.

And while I prescribe to the same handling of the situation as you do, it doesn't change the fact that it's part of the rules. If the plan is to fix the rules it needs to be brought-up to do this and not just house ruled.

[Nodachi]

I like the life paths, but character creation could be more user friendly. And personal scale combat was fine, just have to remember that range is closer to real world at that scale.

[arachneo]

I'll admit that is a particularly obnoxious part of the optional optimization rules and I know I'd never enforce that extra step and be fine with just paying the 50 XP and being done with the Glass Jaw.

You only have to take next level on an achieved negative trait. In book words:
However, this
form of optimization is limited to attaining only the nearest
“activated” level of the Trait (the point where its negative XPs
round off the Trait to its next lowest level of game play eff ect)

So , you can pay 50 XP an dismiss - 50 Glass Jaw

[victor_shaw]

You only have to take next level on an achieved negative trait. In book words:
However, this
form of optimization is limited to attaining only the nearest
“activated” level of the Trait (the point where its negative XPs
round off the Trait to its next lowest level of game play eff ect)

So , you can pay 50 XP an dismiss - 50 Glass Jaw

Glass jaw only has one level (-300)

[monbvol]

While that is true the example text following that section does clearly indicate you do not have to activate a trait before getting rid of it.

So yeah I'm not sure how that got stuck in my head either unless an errata cleared that up at some point.

[arachneo]

Glass jaw only has one level (-300)

But you have not activated any level.

[victor_shaw]

But you have not activated any level.

Maybe it is covered elsewhere, but under Optimization Negative traits.

"When a character has a “partial” negative Trait at the time
he decides to optimize the character, the optimization process
adds XPs to the character’s XP Pool by adding negative XPs to
the Trait (as opposed to spending positive XP the character
may not have to “buy off ” a partial negative Trait)."

"However, this form of optimization is limited to attaining only the nearest
“activated” level of the Trait (the point where its negative XPs
round off the Trait to its next lowest level of game play effect).
For example, if the character has received –125 XP in Glass
Jaw—a 3 TP Trait that costs –300 XPs to activate—then it will
take an additional –175 points to optimize the Trait, adding
175 XPs to the character’s XP Pool in the process."

Again the real issues here is the conflicting descriptions and rules.
While I don't doubt that "just buy it off" is the intent. The rules as written tend to pull you in multiple directions on this with rule and example conflicting with each other and on some cases themselves.

[victor_shaw]

The rules under Optimization also state clearly that no points may be spent in Optimization, only recovered.
So this taken literally, forbids the spending of points to remove Negative traits.

[monbvol]

Yeah the wording is a little odd there and just so everyone sees what you're talking about for contradicting example:

Turning her attention to Traits next, Lisa notes that the
100 XPs in Natural Aptitude/Strategy are effectively useless
to her character now, as she no longer has the Strategy
Skill and 100 XPs are far from enough to activate the
Trait. The same can be said of the 40 XPs in her character’s
Connections Trait and the 15 XPs in Fit. She shaves away
those XPs as well. She also notices that the character’s
–50 XP Compulsion Trait is too high to activate. Wiping it
out, however, would cost 50 XPs, so she instead decides
to subtract another 50 from the Trait, activating the
Compulsion at –1 TP

The highlighted part there does communicate a clear intent that you don't have to activate the trait before removing it.

[Daryk]

In general, I try to stick to the intent.  While that is subject to interpretation (as we are experiencing here), I think it makes more sense.  I will continue to hope I can straighten this out before the next edition is published.

[arachneo]

Yeah, interpretation of what "activated" level means. I always have read as two parts: one for variable-level traits and another for fixed points levels.
When variable you "must", when fixed you "may".
Returning to topic:

apart of clarification in some terms in next edition...

I'm ok with the revision of traits and attribute costs. But it is difficult to make a balanced adjustement of that without an increase in math work (I don't want a 86 point cost on an attribute level and 101 on another, you know  ???). Traits are another question, may be a differentiation in costs on creation traits (those than have no impact on later game) versus those with in-game impact.

About Life Modules: I like it! But I also think bad about the penalty on repetition. If I'm limited by the points is not very nice to pay for what I don't take. May be a different Traits/Attribute when you repeat or a lesser cost.
As an example: "Tour of Duty" (Inner Sphere version) 3 years you gain +50 Rank Trait. If you repeat you not are gaining more Rank? What about seniority?

[BrianDavion]

gonna be honest here... I'd tear the entire system down and start anew, especially char gen. char gen is too confusing, I've played a lot of RPGs many of which manage to get the same level of depth and options as ATOW without being nearly as convoluted.

[StCptMara]

gonna be honest here... I'd tear the entire system down and start anew, especially char gen. char gen is too confusing, I've played a lot of RPGs many of which manage to get the same level of depth and options as ATOW without being nearly as convoluted.

I like CharGen for Destiny, but would like a little bit more specificity, and, honestly, I felt one of the biggest issues of ATOW is shared by Destiny: not enough variety in positive and negative(especially negative) traits.

[guardiandashi]

I like CharGen for Destiny, but would like a little bit more specificity, and, honestly, I felt one of the biggest issues of ATOW is shared by Destiny: not enough variety in positive and negative(especially negative) traits.

I always felt that the traits especially negative ones represent a much wider set of traits because they are generic.
like the addiction trait think of just how many things can be represented by just that, or the compulsion traits.
an addition doesn't HAVE to be purely drug or chemical, it can be an addition to: drugs, nicotine (cigarets) alcohol, fruit, reading a certain kind of music or others as long as it triggers addiction like symptoms if you don't get your "fix"

Compulsions can be a dislike (hatred) of a certain group, a need to talk/act a certain way and many other things, etc. 
this is both the advantage and disadvantage of the fact that a lot of things are pretty generic.  the advantage is it gives a lot more flexibility with minimal page space devoted to the topic, the real disadvantage, is that I think they really should have included some longer(more) lists of suggestions as to what they can represent.