BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => General BattleTech Discussion => Topic started by: Pat Payne on 23 July 2019, 11:35:09
-
Taking a look at the THIS Is Battletech PDF, and I'm intrigued by this new RP book, MechWarrior: Destiny. (Now, in hindsight, I see where calling the KS reward "MechWarrior Legends" rather than "BattleTech Legends" makes perfect sense). I know it's probably way early in the process to be answering any questions about it, but I do have two just in case they can be answered:
1. Will the game come with integrations for BT and Alpha Strike as well (although the idea of a free-form, "theater of the mind" Mech combat system is extremely cool too, and sorely needed for RP sessions)?
2. Character creation -- will it be easier than AToW? I took one look at the chargen for AToW and said "nope".
-
1. EDIT: This has its own system for 'Mech-Scale Combat. There are rules for tabletop integration which allow the incorporation of RPG elements into CBT or AS games, but it's not a 1:1 conversion.
2. Far easier.
At the direction of management, I'll have no further information about this product at this time.
-
1. Not exactly. Has its own system for 'Mech-Scale Combat.
2. Far easier.
I'll have no further information about this product at this time.
No worries, just this puts my mind at ease about the second point. Thanks!
-
Hey nice catch
-
A few other observations / idle thoughts while perusing the pdf
Is MW: Destiny the BT approximation of Shadowrun Anarchy?
That game being played at the bottom
* what’s up with those big coin things with the Davion and Kurita logo? Much thicker than the challenge coins
* those are definitely faction-themed movement dice. Both sides have multiple colors with their logo
-
I am really excited about this!
-
However, while I like the idea of MW:D having its own simplified mech combat rules very much. Allow easy conversion of gunnery/piloting skill to TW/AS is a must to give people a choice. For me, I prefer to be able to do both, use whatever mech combat that I feel appropriate for group/situation.
-
Is this Pdf something that backers to the kick starter get?
-
Yes go to the Dropbox link in the newest update
-
Is this Pdf something that backers to the kick starter get?
Nope, the backers just get 'This is BattleTech' pdf, with the promotion image stating that this is coming soon.
-
I am BEYOND excited about this.
But I must agree with my esteemed colleague above- please do include a simple conversion to P/G for standard Battetech or Alpha Strike.
Now, that said- I love the homage to the original Jim Holloway piece on the cover. If this is spiritually in line with MechWarrior 1e and 2e, I can see our group putting together a campaign pretty quickly. Faster character gen, faster and simpler task resolution, plenty of MechWarrior flavor- I hope that's what's in store for us. Heck, even the return to the title "MechWarrior" bodes well.
I thought the return of the missing Legendary designs as high quality plastic minis was the most excitement I'd get from Battletech this year- but this? This is just as awesome.
Back in the late 80s, we played MechWarrior 1e and loved it. It was quirky, clunky, and the xp mechanic was a bit burdensome- but holy hell did we have a blast trying to become Knights or Barons though our exploits. In 1995, we founded the gaming club I'm still a part of now- the Royal Dragoon Guards, and we founded it on a massive MechWarrior 2e/BattleTech campaign that stretched through the Clan War following the trials and tribulations of our struggling mercenary battalion. That campaign had thirty players/Game Masters running the PCs and the OPFOR. It was quite a thing- in the climactic battle to unseat a usurper Baron, we had the battalion XO going sword-to-sword with a PC who had defected to the enemy while the BattleMechs mixed it up outside the castle walls. Epic stuff. When I got married, it was in the uniform of our unit, with the ushers and groomsmen likewise uniformed.
We playtested for MechWarrior 3rd Edition, and enjoyed some of those campaigns as well- but hit our stride with Time of War where we had a 17-player campaign in which the PCs formed their own Houses Minor banded together under their Duke in exile to take back the planet Royal from House Kurita after it fell in the Fourth War. We still talk about those Houses Minor to this day, and a couple of them are still entities within our gaming club.
So, when you announce a new version of MechWarrior that takes us back in complexity and theme- well, you've got my full attention.
-
However, while I like the idea of MW:D having its own simplified mech combat rules very much. Allow easy conversion of gunnery/piloting skill to TW/AS is a must to give people a choice. For me, I prefer to be able to do both, use whatever mech combat that I feel appropriate for group/situation.
This definitely. I like the idea of not having to break out the battlemaps for every random encounter, but for big, set-piece battles, it would be very nice to play it out as an AS or BT or BF or what-have-you battle.
-
* what’s up with those big coin things with the Davion and Kurita logo? Much thicker than the challenge coins
Tins with dice from Origins?
-
This is why I ask. I’ve never seen them discussed or sold on the secondary market
-
speaking of which, the dice shown come from those tins.
-
That game being played at the bottom
* what’s up with those big coin things with the Davion and Kurita logo? Much thicker than the challenge coins
* those are definitely faction-themed movement dice. Both sides have multiple colors with their logo
The "coin things" are the aluminum dice "pucks," which are available at conventions this year and which may be available in the web store as well. (Checking on that.)
The dice pictured come inside the pucks. There are 10 pucks, each with a different color/faction logo.
-
I’ve seen con exclusive metal dice out there but never off-color for the house like that (E.g. like the red davion and black kurita)
I’d totally spring for faction themed movement dice based on the colors used as the example in the bmm
-
I’ve seen con exclusive metal dice out there but never off-color for the house like that (E.g. like the red davion and black kurita)
I’d totally spring for faction themed movement dice based on the colors used as the example in the bmm
Right, these "pucks" are a little different than the first con-exclusive aluminum dice produced a couple years ago.
-
*snip*
That sounds like a great time, man! Wish I could put a group together for crazy adventures like that.
-
Right, these "pucks" are a little different than the first con-exclusive aluminum dice produced a couple years ago.
I have a new item for my list of grievances concerning injury affecting my person via being denied attending cons
-
I needed to revise my initial statement, re; "conversion" to tabletop games:
This has its own system for 'Mech-Scale Combat. There are rules for tabletop integration which allow the incorporation of RPG elements into CBT or AS games, but it's not a 1:1 conversion.
-
I needed to revise my initial statement, re; "conversion" to tabletop games:
This has its own system for 'Mech-Scale Combat. There are rules for tabletop integration which allow the incorporation of RPG elements into CBT or AS games, but it's not a 1:1 conversion.
That's good enough for me. Looking forward to hear more about MW:D. Please keep us informed when TPTB give a green light.
-
That's good enough for me. Looking forward to hear more about MW:D. Please keep us informed when TPTB give a green light.
Same here! I'm absolutely looking forward to this! :thumbsup:
-
Pat Payne,
This was an idea I'd been playing with in anticipation of the next campaign I run. The idea was to use Alpha Strike for most battles, but break out Battletech for pivotal actions that had heavier meaning to the plot, and perhaps even Solaris VII if only a couple of 'Mechs were involved, or if it needed to be extremely detailed and dramatic.
-
Finally, there will be a new edition of MechWarrior RPG.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=66175.new;topicseen#new
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/583332420712136734/603277639456653312/unknown.png)
-
I'm extremely hesitant here... having invested hundreds of hours into AToW, and enjoyed it. CGL doesn't exactly have a great track record with new RPG editions (see Shadowrun)…
-
Pat Payne,
This was an idea I'd been playing with in anticipation of the next campaign I run. The idea was to use Alpha Strike for most battles, but break out Battletech for pivotal actions that had heavier meaning to the plot, and perhaps even Solaris VII if only a couple of 'Mechs were involved, or if it needed to be extremely detailed and dramatic.
Which ruleset have you planned to use in you next campaign? My players would never play AToW, so I run mine using MW2e and TW. We enjoy the campaign greatly.
-
The solution to players who would "never" play AToW is to make their characters for them.
-
The solution to players who would "never" play AToW is to make their characters for them.
It shouldn't be the case, though.
AToW wasn't that bad playing it but sadly, the creation process, was not fun for me.
-
1. EDIT: This has its own system for 'Mech-Scale Combat. There are rules for tabletop integration which allow the incorporation of RPG elements into CBT or AS games, but it's not a 1:1 conversion.
2. Far easier.
At the direction of management, I'll have no further information about this product at this time.
Okay, super excited. Two questions come to mind for me: If character creation is far simpler than ATOW, are we looking at something similar to MW2 from the old FASA days? Secondly, is there an ETA for the project?
-
Which ruleset have you planned to use in you next campaign? My players would never play AToW, so I run mine using MW2e and TW. We enjoy the campaign greatly.
We have used AToW, but we'd probably go with MechWarrior 2e, character gen is easier, and we tweaked the formula for skill bases to alter the swinginess a bit.
-
The solution to players who would "never" play AToW is to make their characters for them.
"I'll make your character for you" is a threat not an encouragement. :P
-
The solution to players who would "never" play AToW is to make their characters for them.
... I have used pre-made characters, it sucks the life out of a game as you have 0 investment in someone else's stats.
-
"I'll make your character for you" is a threat not an encouragement. :P
... I have used pre-made characters, it sucks the life out of a game as you have 0 investment in someone else's stats.
I enjoy playing good pre-mades. It stops me from optimizing and let's me just focus on the role, which I have no problem tweaking a little personality-wise.
In our current Shadowrun game, I told the GM that if he doesn't want one of my characters (I have a 'reputation') then I'll happily play anything he wants to make me. He tried to bluff me with this, and it has been lots of fun to play a tiny phys ad bounty hunter that relies on dodging and nerve strike.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/699190218029731840/OJv6aQxE_400x400.jpg)
-
Wow, I completely missed this (mostly from downloading & not actually opening the file). That's pretty great. One more thing to look forward to.
-
AToW wasn't that bad playing it but sadly, the creation process, was not fun for me.
That's what killed it for me. When it becomes near-mandatory to keep a running spreadsheet to create a character, it's not fun anymore. I have a PDF copy of AToW which I've been using as a lore reference for a home-brew I've been working on, but that homebrew (first using Mongoose Traveller's SRD as a base, but I switched over to the old D6 Star Wars engine) is on hold, because Destiny looks promising, and I'd rather throw money CGL's way when I can :thumbsup:
-
Speaking as someone who created some of the premade characters in MW:D, it's much quicker and easier than AToW....
Craig
-
the complexity of character creation is what has kept me from the BT roleplaying game scene.. when you read the rules for making a character and can't even sort out where to start despite examples given in the book, it is a no go for me.
-
If I can have a game where all 7 of my players characters can engage in a fun and dynamic mech combat without the hassle of breaking out the map boards and then waiting while everyone has to drop back to TW or AS then this book will be well worth it! its not that I don't like the system of AS or TW I really like them but I don't want TW and As to get in the way of me telling a good story.
-
Does anybody have some kind of estimate (Even one that might be out there) as to when this might become available both as a PDF and as a printed version?
-
Does anybody have some kind of estimate (Even one that might be out there) as to when this might become available both as a PDF and as a printed version?
Only information is on 'THIS is BattleTech' pdf. It says 'coming soon'
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/583332420712136734/603277639456653312/unknown.png)
-
Whoah, that cover is familiar...
-
Feel the power of N O S T A L G I A
-
The solution to players who would "never" play AToW is to make their characters for them.
I just make the character using the 3rd Edition rules and convert it using the guidelines in the Companion...
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/498791085305364489/603743981121175582/image0.png)
Hmmm...
-
I hope this new Mechwarrior Destiny does not totally invalidate ATOW and the Companion. At least let the skills and equipment port over.
-
I hope this does not invalidate ATOW and the Companion totally.
-
If it’s anything like shadowrun anarchy it won’t. They’re releasing a new edition of the core shadowrun rules
-
Whew! That would be a smart move. Those are some good books.
-
I hope this new Mechwarrior Destiny does not totally invalidate ATOW and the Companion. At least let the skills and equipment port over.
What do you mean by invalidating? As long as you still have the books no one can invalidate your game. I’m still running my MW2e game, even after it long became unsupported edition.
If you mean a way to convert characters to the new edition, I hope CGL make it a convenient option for player who wish to do so. But truthfully, with time and patience, and may be a lot of hand waving, you can convert any PCs to any system, it just may not be a 1:1 conversion.
-
If it’s anything like shadowrun anarchy it won’t. They’re releasing a new edition of the core shadowrun rules
If it's anything like Shadowrun Anarchy, you're also better off staying with whatever you're playing now. xp
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/59e527cec7d8e395d0475f96df7ca7a4/tenor.gif)
-
I've heard people say the same about Alpha Strike; some people just value different things in a game. I find A Time of War un-playably unwieldy on the character creation front, so I'm looking forward to MechWarrior: Destiny.
-
Mind trimming that image down?
-
Mind trimming that image down?
Done.
My apologies. I initially posted from my phone.
-
Concur totally with Dahmin_Toran! I've invested hundreds of hours in AToW, and would hate to throw that away...
-
I've heard people say the same about Alpha Strike; some people just value different things in a game. I find A Time of War un-playably unwieldy on the character creation front, so I'm looking forward to MechWarrior: Destiny.
okay, I'll admit it was harsh. I was just really disappointed in Anarchy. I would like to see a simpler Battletech RPG(especially character creation), but I'd hate to see things like spend XP to covert your SRMs to clan streak SRMs mid way through a fight (or however that mechanic worked) or the players deciding whether or not the enemy forces bring in reserves instead of the GM.
Still looking forward to seeing what 6th ed brings though.
-
Concur totally with Dahmin_Toran! I've invested hundreds of hours in AToW, and would hate to throw that away...
Why do you have to throw anything away? You can still play AToW even as MW:D came out if you wish, as long as you still have the books and people to play with, right?
-
To be clear, when I say "make their characters for them", the method I use is to draft a version, and then let them tweak from there in negotiation with me as the GM. It's not particularly hard, and I find the process enjoyable.
-
That depends entirely on what exactly Destiny is...
-
That depends entirely on what exactly Destiny is...
I still don't get why 'what Destiny is' have to do with your enjoyment of AToW. MW2e is long OOP and unsupported, but I'm still running it and enjoying it.
-
If Destiny is the new RPG rules, it will be that much harder to find players for AToW… how many 3rd Edition players do you know?
-
If Destiny is the new RPG rules, it will be that much harder to find players for AToW… how many 3rd Edition players do you know?
Most people I know play 2e, but that's just my experience. And Destiny will be the new RPG rules, that much is clear.
-
I'm not seeing that, but if it's so... :P
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/498791085305364489/603743981121175582/image0.png)
Hmmm...
That's an error. It should be MechWarrior: Legends, the book unlocked as a stretch goal, not Destiny.
Destiny will be awhile yet, it's still in edit.
-
I've heard people say the same about Alpha Strike; some people just value different things in a game. I find A Time of War un-playably unwieldy on the character creation front, so I'm looking forward to MechWarrior: Destiny.
my own opinion of AToW has been that the book has some issues with properly conveying information, particularly character generation, but i've never found the time i'd need to recompile it to test. so i'm cautiously hopeful about mechwarrior: destiny has been written with people new to both the setting and RPGs in mind instead of assuming a certain grognardishness.
-
I'm not seeing that, but if it's so... :P
At the minimum, they will keep both AToW and MW:D for different groups of players, those who prefer detailed simulationistic game and those who prefer rule liter one. Or MW:D will be a new edition and supercede AToW. I can only think of these two possibilities.
-
G'evening gents!
Might I intercede here for a few minutes? Hopefully, this will be read as a voice of reason, or at least it will be seen as neutral bias on the subject of CGL entertaining the novel idea of creating a new version of the Mechwarrior RPG system for the future.
First, let me say thank you Sanpats for showing the folks who troll these forums the prospect that there is a possible new version of the RPG system in the works. If it happens and it works for the GM's and their player's gaming venues in that future, then great! If not then those current GM's out there at that time should see no harm and no foul in the attempt and can stick with one of the other editions of the game as each iteration of this game system seems to have a small and loyal die-hard fan base anyway for whatever reasons that they do for whatever version of the game that they particularly like to play.
Now for those stuck in the time warp of believing that the current 4th edition version of the RPG, aka ATOW, is the shiznit and/or the end-all of be all in perfection in balancing and blending the tabletop to the RPG elements. Then let's be real and break down the myth for you that it's truly not a great RPG edition in and of itself. Simple math... we've had two real books for this edition of the Mechwarrior RPG at the moment and that's all we've had for nearly a decade. Think about that for a minute and let it sink in... two real books and nothing else... the base ATOW RPG and then a companion book. Other then that nothing really at all. Now some would argue that it's because the rules are perfect and adaptable to the tabletop as is so why do we need anything else, others could argue against that idea for any number of various reason and they too could be seen as right in their ideas as well.
Now having said that, then let me make this part clear, the rules in ATOW function well enough to keep most gamer groups happy once you get past the time-consuming character creation, the confusion of the combat mechanics, and the vast amount of charts and rules in general that have to be kept track of until you become an expert at them for most likely however long it takes for that to sink in to your gamers minds. However, so does any of a number of dozens of other RPG's out on the market which could be made to adapt and run this game genre just fine with some creative imagination and conversion by their group's gamemaster if they decide to invest the time into doing so for their group and their desires. Truly the best reason as to why having the possibility of a new RPG version of the game is something that we all should want. Is if the game does commercially succeed and everyone learns to adapt to the new ruleset with an open mind then there is the likeliness that CGL will continue making more products for the game line specifically oriented for the RPG adventures with possible intent and ways of integrating new ideas, maps, modules, rules, and new cannon into the lore... as well a better melding the rules to further and hopefully seamlessly adapt the RPG to the tabletop for a truly cinematic experience rather then just a mathematic nightmare of numbers and charts.
Let's face a simple truth and fact that happens at most gaming stores and venues across the world is that most gamers want a simple enough but diverse enough game system that can entice more people to play their desired game quickly and efficiently. Yes, there has to be a reasonable ruleset put in place with a good technical balance for the game system to succeed. But let's face it, the Battletech/Mechwarrior brand and licensing is not likely to win millions or even tens of thousands of fans over if the rules are too convoluted with hundreds of charts and/or require your GM to make the players characters for them especially if it requires a nice fancy excel or PDF character sheet to calculate the mathematics for them. Sure those things help the community if folks are willing to invest the time into assisting their players to do so (by the way kudos to those who have made sheets). But the point is that if we want the RPG game to truly succeed, it needs to be easily read, easily adaptable, and hopefully innovative and elegant enough to break the stigma that we currently have when approaching a new player to the genre other then by telling him/her that hey here's the book... you'll have a lot to learn if you want to play.
The bottom line is that each edition of any game system will appeal to a certain crowd. The ones that do it and win the hearts of the masses are the ones that will continue to succeed the most and consequently will be the game systems that will continue to flourish and grow.
Cheers!
-CoreWatch
-
So will MW: Destiny be to AToW what Alpha Strike is to AGoAC?
-
At the minimum, they will keep both AToW and MW:D for different groups of players, those who prefer detailed simulationistic game and those who prefer rule liter one. Or MW:D will be a new edition and supercede AToW. I can only think of these two possibilities.
I'm going to hope for the former, personally.
-
I'm going to hope for the former, personally.
In 'THIS is BattleTech' promotional pdf shows only MW:D as the RPG option for BattleTech. At least this is what CGL intends for the new comers.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/498791085305364489/604025652399570975/Untitled.jpg)
-
Lovely. Well, I suppose that's one way to shed grognards.
-
My hope is that MechWarrior: Destiny fixes what was bad about AToW and leaves the rest allow.
AToW was a good system game mechanics wise it's character creation engine was its only issues.
I hope they don't pull a Shadowrun 6th edition and gut the system removing all logic and reason for the sake of "Simplifying".
-
Heh... that's how I felt about Shadowrun 4th edition too...
-
you'll know AToW is dead if they print MW:Destiny with the spine art to fit with the core reprints. another hint might be they put new system rules in a place where AToW rules would have been. until then i don't see them scrapping a perfectly serviceable system (complaints about character creation aside)
-
If they do kill it, I certainly hope they issue new era guidance in one way or another. I suppose now is as good a time as any to go index my AToW tweaks threads down in fan rules...
-
I hope they don't pull a Shadowrun 6th edition and gut the system removing all logic and reason for the sake of "Simplifying".
Heh... that's how I felt about Shadowrun 4th edition too...
This is why I'm still running Shadowrun 3E and have no intention to change. I haven't bought a Shadowrun product since 4E, they just lost me.
I'm interested in looking at a new version of a BattleTech RPG but am not sure what it's going to need to do to get me to move on from MW2E.
AToW looked reasonable as a ruleset but nothing jumped out at me and said THIS is why you should switch, and we don't really have any glaring problems with MW2E for the type of games we play.
In the end I guess I'm not the target audience anymore.
-
...thought AToW was dead for ages, really. outside of these forums i hardly ever see it and i've never found anyone that plays it in my area. maybe it's just a game that's not fit for the modern gaming world, like paranoia.
-
In the end I guess I'm not the target audience anymore.
no offense, but i hope you aren't. the game needs fresh blood more than it needs the old peacekeepers cheered on one more hurrah and as it exists now getting new players onboard is a HARD sell.
-
the main issue on the visibility front is that it hasn't been reprinted since 2012 and getting a hardcopy is usually fiscally problematic. the BT rpgs have always hurt for lack of supplements as well. it's hard to sell a tabletop rpg that has received one dedicated physical release (the companion, perhaps the rarest book printed by CGL) to people who are used to quarterly sourcebook / rulebook releases
-
That's hard to swallow, but reasonable. :P
I'd hate to follow ColBosch into obscurity here... xp
-
Paranoia? I received a new edition of that game just two weeks ago for my birthday...
-
no offense, but i hope you aren't.
None taken :)
I recognise that I'm getting old & set in my ways.
BT hasn't poisoned the well the way SR did where I'm concerned so I'll try the new rules when they're out. I just don't know yet what they can change that will excite me in a rules mechanics sense. Maybe MW:Destiny will blow me away and take my gaming to a new level, I'd be happy if it did ;) Just because I don't know how they could do it doesn't mean that I don't want them to try!
-
I'm certainly curious enough to look at the new rules, but if they completely abandon the old, I don't know if I'll stay. Honestly, the clan invasion was the first "betrayal of ideals" then-FASA pulled, and I stuck around anyway. BattleTech's blend of hard and soft science fiction (fantasy, really, in the latter case) is intriguing. "We'll see how it goes" is about as far as I'm willing to go at this point. The original universe had a lot of promise, then suddenly turned left with the clan invasion, but retained enough to keep me interested.
-
:bang: I am a returning player and was just getting comfortable with AToW. Yes there was a steep learning curve to the character creation, but after a couple I got it down.
My biggest problem with a new RPG is more books. It seems like when I think I am getting caught up, something changes. I just got Tech Manual, the last one I was missing to complete my set, and it does not match the others. I know it is a stupid thing, but the set is off.
I know TPTB need to introduce new products to get new players and keep the old ones engaged, and I want that to. I will probably pick up MW:D, and I hope I do not need to learn a new system to play my old game.
-
There's nothing stopping anyone from using the old or current system. It's not like they're going to stop producing AToW supplements once Destiny comes out. They already stopped doing that a long time ago.
If your group is happy with what they're using, keep using it.
-
It seems the company's renewal cycle is slightly out of step with the kind of people they mostly attract. I really don't know how to fix that...
-
I think part of the issue is the RPG has always been a distant secondary priority. And in all fairness it probably does appeal to a small section of the player base.
-
And in all fairness it probably does appeal to a small section of the player base.
Which is unfortunate, because to me it's one of the most compelling RPG universes around. There's years of fun there, thanks to the setting.
-
I also view the period between 2001 and 2016 as one of intermittend hiatus. These 15 years have not been kind to the Battletech Universe. It saw major shifts in IP, the whole RPG and miniature market as well as the continuing rise of the digital world, which had been eating away shares of miniature games during the 1990s already.
But right now, everything is more energized. And BT is on a surge.
-
I think part of the issue is the RPG has always been a distant secondary priority. And in all fairness it probably does appeal to a small section of the player base.
I was about to say the same thing. The best the rpg had for supplements were the Mech Warrior’s guide to X at the end of the fasa run. It’s never going to get the proper treatment to be successful as an independent rpg
-
I was about to say the same thing. The best the rpg had for supplements were the Mech Warrior’s guide to X at the end of the fasa run. It’s never going to get the proper treatment to be successful as an independent rpg
I agree, but I always ran it in conjunction with the table top for the mech battles. It added so much as opposed to just pushing minis around.
-
Which is unfortunate, because to me it's one of the most compelling RPG universes around. There's years of fun there, thanks to the setting.
the inner sphere is probably the only setting where you can tackle any topic from multiple angles, without having to uproot any of the established cultural materials just by skipping from one world to another. i could have a serious adventure that involves reflection on what makes slaving/rape/enthosupremicy* evil, spin from that into some 80s-flavor villain of the week schmaltz*, then carry into some lighthearted fun around town shopping/catching a petty mugger and not have anything in the universe be altered in any way i need to keep track of. imagine the pain of having to sit on it through 5+ years teaching new players how to run an RPG because it was too steep of a learning curve....
*how did i spell that right in the first try?
-
Currently I'm running two games on roll20. Most of the characters aren't MechWarriors. Clan laborers in one, Inner Sphere hucksters in another. So there is only one thing I want to know:
Will I be able to recreate all the awesomeness of Fritz von Vilder, Hanseatic accountant, and not feel pressured into being a MechWarrior? :D
-
That's what killed it for me. When it becomes near-mandatory to keep a running spreadsheet to create a character, it's not fun anymore. I have a PDF copy of AToW which I've been using as a lore reference for a home-brew I've been working on, but that homebrew (first using Mongoose Traveller's SRD as a base, but I switched over to the old D6 Star Wars engine) is on hold, because Destiny looks promising, and I'd rather throw money CGL's way when I can :thumbsup:
I’ve been doing much the same thing—using the older RPGs and AToW for a couple of homebrews. I jotted down a few easy notes, and last year ran a one shot using Thousand Suns: Revised (it’s a 2d12 system so not difficult to go back and forth to the hex board). I was also toying with West End Games’ D6 Space system—would love to compare notes someday.
Lately I’ve been playing around with using N.E.W. (From EN Publishing). Seems like it would be a decent fit, especially with exploits mirroring some Alpha Strike abilities.
But as soon as I saw this teaser for MW:D, I suddenly have less enthusiasm for my conversions ...
Can’t wait to see this!
-
I'm really looking forward to seeing this and what it's going to do. My last attempt at a campaign fizzled because of the ATOW system, especially CG. So a new system is welcome and desired!
-
If you need help with AToW character generation, there are a few of us around who can help... just ask!
-
Just ran three players through character creation. It's actually not that bad and all 3 were interested in doing more than just mech battles after I ran them through it. It's just poorly organized.
Examples:
- why have that 850 required XP you're supposed to spend be listed separately when you have to take the affiliation module? Just make the affiliation module 1000xp and include that stuff!
- Why is figuring out you health in a side bar in the combat section instead of part of character creation?
- Why is figuring out your movement a side bar in the movement section instead of part of character creation?
I do hope the rest is better organized since it looks like I am going to be GM actual AToW sessions now. :o
-
Just ran three players through character creation. It's actually not that bad and all 3 were interested in doing more than just mech battles after I ran them through it. It's just poorly organized.
Examples:
- why have that 850 required XP you're supposed to spend be listed separately when you have to take the affiliation module? Just make the affiliation module 1000xp and include that stuff!
- Why is figuring out you health in a side bar in the combat section instead of part of character creation?
- Why is figuring out your movement a side bar in the movement section instead of part of character creation?
I do hope the rest is better organized since it looks like I am going to be GM actual AToW sessions now. :o
As someone in the beta test a decade ago, I sat down and generated over 100 characters. Most from Minor Periphery / Novo Franklin because I wanted the challenge of something forcing you to buy citizenship and buy off illiteracy if you were going to be anything more than a street thug or laborer (not that there's anything wrong with that - the time passage through jump ship travel + aging effects help build skills up slightly more rapidly if the GM is generous with your character's 'training'). If I recall, many of us in the discussion asked to just dump that little "prerequisite", especially since it's kind of buried in the text. A sidebar with this explanation should stick out. Also, we wondered why Clan characters got more XP to start than IS characters. Thankfully they changed at least that.
I love AToW. I plan to keep running with it. Seems like a lot of love was put into the game, character creation nightmares aside. I have hopes for Destiny that it stays within the AToW vein, fixes the weird costs like the 850 at the beginning, still gives the wide array of skills so that people aren't always encouraged to be MechWarriors.
Two phrases I tend to tell my players when making characters now: "Are you a character who happens to know how to pilot a mech? Or are you a mech who just has a character inside it?" and "Just because it's Star Wars doesn't mean everyone has to play a Jedi."
-
Just ran three players through character creation. It's actually not that bad and all 3 were interested in doing more than just mech battles after I ran them through it. It's just poorly organized.
Examples:
- why have that 850 required XP you're supposed to spend be listed separately when you have to take the affiliation module? Just make the affiliation module 1000xp and include that stuff!
- Why is figuring out you health in a side bar in the combat section instead of part of character creation?
- Why is figuring out your movement a side bar in the movement section instead of part of character creation?
I do hope the rest is better organized since it looks like I am going to be GM actual AToW sessions now. :o
I suggested in one of these AToW threads that someone reorganized and streamlined the character creation for a PDF or free download to help players. Lord knows how many times my group passed around one or two books, of any system, during the making of new characters.
Now there may be no reason for it.
Still would be useful to have a easily download character PDF. Hopefully TPTB will do that for MW:D.
-
The name of the new RPG has me a little concerned.
MechWarrior: Destiny rings a little to close to Shadowrun: Anarchy for me.
So it looks way to much like a AToW simplified product and less like a clean-up of the AToW system.
Only time will tell but I am not holding my breath.
-
But as soon as I saw this teaser for MW:D, I suddenly have less enthusiasm for my conversions ...
Same here. I had just begun homebrewing rules for character generation in MW2. Thre rest of the rules system in MW2 seems still very fine to me. I like me some light rules sets.
-
The name of the new RPG has me a little concerned.
MechWarrior: Destiny rings a little to close to Shadowrun: Anarchy for me.
So it looks way to much like a AToW simplified product and less like a clean-up of the AToW system.
Only time will tell but I am not holding my breath.
ATOW is so buggy and complicated that a proper clean up and revision would automatically create a simplified system by default.
In a way i kinda hope that this is the alpha strike to ATOW's BT. If they share elements but it has simplified mechanics, it means that the existing ATOW stats and details can still be used, and catalyst only has to include one set of info for rpg uses moving forward.
-
ATOW is so buggy and complicated that a proper clean up and revision would automatically create a simplified system by default.
In a way i kinda hope that this is the alpha strike to ATOW's BT. If they share elements but it has simplified mechanics, it means that the existing ATOW stats and details can still be used, and catalyst only has to include one set of info for rpg uses moving forward.
It would be nice if I do not have to convert my AToW character to MW:D. I always thought it a little off putting that every edition of the RPG had a different system.
-
Lately I’ve been playing around with using N.E.W. (From EN Publishing). Seems like it would be a decent fit, especially with exploits mirroring some Alpha Strike abilities.
Funny you should mention N.E.W., that was another one I was kicking the tires on.
-
News from GenCon 2019: Clan Invasion backers will get to test MechWarrior: Destiny beta.
-
News from GenCon 2019: Clan Invasion KS backers will get to test MW:D beta.
-
Nice!
-
Woo bonus.
-
Did they specify level or is it "all backers"?
-
I heard Randal Bills said "anyone who backs", but you can listen for yourself.
https://www.facebook.com/CatalystGameLabs/videos/483648219059444/
about 54.30 minutes in.
-
Which ruleset have you planned to use in you next campaign? My players would never play AToW, so I run mine using MW2e and TW. We enjoy the campaign greatly.
That what my group uses as well. MW2 is arguably easiest RPG system made for Battletech to deal with and my gm has modded what rough spots it does have. MW1 was ok but it has issues. I think alot system have them. Unfortunately there people who don't like RPG side of it. Having these special abilities and skills enhances stuff bit. MegaMek has this stuff integrated in it, which i hope this MW Destiny will have something like that.
The home brew Shadowtech campaign i was in using Shadowrun rules with Battletech was good too. I do tend like the multiple die, and exploding thing more than most systems i've played in the past.
I'm very happy someone one tried make a RPG-lite that works hand and hand with the Table top, it really expands the game. I like forward trying it out when it's sold to the general public.
-
Destiny has no relation to ATOW. It’s a completely different system, it uses a variation of the Cue system, like Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, and Anarchy.
-
is there a way to get a taste of the cue system at minimal cost?
-
News from GenCon 2019: Clan Invasion backers will get to test MechWarrior: Destiny beta.
Yes please! :thumbsup:
is there a way to get a taste of the cue system at minimal cost?
Looks like this may be the way to go: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/94125/Cosmic-Patrol-Core-Rulebook
-
i followed the link to the cosmic patrol site from the cgl website and it's an expired domain taken over by an electronic slot machine company xp
there is a free rpg day QSR i'll check out first. the core rules are only $3 on the cgl store so it's not a big investment if i'm intrigued
-
i followed the link to the cosmic patrol site from the cgl website and it's an expired domain taken over by an electronic slot machine company xp
Well, at least it's still games, for a wildly varying (and quite possibly rigged) value of "games" ::)
-
There are free Valiant QSRs on DrivethruRPG.
-
Yay? If it's like Shadowrun: Anarchy, I don't know how it will be received. I hope they maintain AToW in parallel if that happens.
-
As long as Destiny doesn't replace AToW, I'll be happy.
-
Destiny has no relation to ATOW. It’s a completely different system, it uses a variation of the Cue system, like Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, and Anarchy.
xp
I'll reserve final judgement after reading the beta, but after seeing how my regular RPG group reacted to Anarchy, I doubt this will ever hit the table here.
-
The cue system reminds me a lot of FATE, which I like a lot. Though in RPGs I’m much more about the RP than the G so I’m not expecting any kind of popular crowd to form behind me on that.
A rules light system has the potential to be a good overlay on top of the table top game to enhance the experience.
-
Adrian can you give us an idea about how the mech combat works in the new system?
-
drop your and your opponent's mech on the floor. the one that breaks into the fewest pieces wins
-
drop your and your opponent's mech on the floor. the one that breaks into the fewest pieces wins
Based on historical sampling, I shall lose.
-
sales of single-piece IWM light mechs skyrocket. more at 11.
-
sales of single-piece IWM light mechs skyrocket. more at 11.
You fools! My Hunckback shall rule over you all!
-
You fools! My Hunckback shall rule over you all!
I would think the UrbanMech would want word with you about that. ^-^
-
AToW isn't really well supported today either, so I wouldn't mind if it went down a long exodus road.
-
{official} it seems its just going to to the Cue system like I feared.
So my excitement end rather quickly.
-
Destiny has no relation to ATOW. It’s a completely different system, it uses a variation of the Cue system, like Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, and Anarchy.
Wow that was quick.
That one statement ended any interest I had in the new RPG.
-
So will MW: Destiny be to AToW what Alpha Strike is to AGoAC?
To answer my own question, based on what's been said so far: Apparently not. Completely unrelated system.
I like AToW, from an armchair general's perspective; the rules look good to me but I've yet to actually play with them. I hope they don't discontinue the system.
That said, it will be interesting to see what Destiny will bring and if the two systems will complement or compete against each other.
-
If you would like any help with the AToW character creation system, I like to think of myself as fairly proficient with it at this point. All you need to do is ask...
-
Has anyone used the clue system before. it's like fate? No stats? Just + & - dice?
-
Guys. We have 3 threads talking about this.
-
3? I only remember 2.
-
This one.
One in AToW under the same name.
And it is being discussed in the AToW 2nd edition thread.
-
Has anyone used the clue system before. it's like fate? No stats? Just + & - dice?
At first glance the cue system reminded me of fate’s scene setup and character aspects. Star patrol uses stats and regular dice. I haven’t looked at anarchy
It’s rules light so if you want AToW2 or Starfinder you’re probably not going to be happy
-
At first glance the cue system reminded me of fate’s scene setup and character aspects. Star patrol uses stats and regular dice. I haven’t looked at anarchy
It’s rules light so if you want AToW2 or Starfinder you’re probably not going to be happy
I'm more looking for a MW2 lite game or something that just add options for table top game. I like CGL, but they've never made great roleplaying game rules for Battletech.
-
{official} it seems its just going to to the Cue system like I feared.
So my excitement end rather quickly.
What's wrong with the CUE system? (Genuinely curious, I haven't played with it yet.)
-
What's wrong with the CUE system? (Genuinely curious, I haven't played with it yet.)
It's very flexible -- some people think it's too flexible. Pure CUE doesn't have a dedicated GM -- instead, players take turns acting as GM, setting the scene and playing the NPC/Villans in the said scene. One scene ends, the next scene starts with another player being the GM. Skills are simplified and cues are used to give the player ideas about what they can do with their character.
Cue based RPGs are Cosmic Patrol, Valient, SR: Anarchy, and BT: Destiny....
Craig
-
What's wrong with the CUE system? (Genuinely curious, I haven't played with it yet.)
My only experience has been with Anarchy which as I understand they tweaked a few things. It's been awhile since I read through them so I don't have specifics, but here's some of the things that bothered my group.
- Anarchy had a GM, but as I understand, the Cue system doesn't regularly. Even with a GM, a player could make changes to the game to some level. An example used is a player(not the GM) deciding that an extra security team comes bursting in that the players now had to deal with. Why would anyone do this? It's one thing if a player cracks a joke about it, and the GM says, "hey good idea!", but to give the players that kind of control over the GM's world? No thanks.
- Initiative is left to right around the table.
- There is no cash. Gear is bought with XP. Gear is also supper generic. This works for some RPGs, but not what my group wanted in a shadowrun game.
- You could upgrade your gear while you played. I don't mean by RPing out going to a store. I mean mid fight. I forget how it worked, but one example from the book was a player deciding mid fight that their gun had an attached grenade launcher now. I fear how this would work in in a battletech game. "turns out my SRM6 was a clan streak model this whole time!"
Now to be honest, I've never actually played a game with the Cue system. My group got as far reading through the rules and making characters one night and when we were done, no one had any desire to actually play, ever. On the other hand, when I recently had players make a character for AToW to use in a Total Warfare campaign they were all eager for some out of mech action too. (which I am totally unprepared for :o )
-
I think AToW is great, personally. It's more detailed than 2nd edition, uses 2d6 (unlike 3rd), and is more consistent than 1st edition. Is it perfect? No, but it's much closer than any other edition to date.
-
I think I'd be perfectly happy with both living alongside one another. Bonus points if I could get a character to translate between the systems (assume it would be really hard going from Destiny to AToW).
Incidentally, the mods are looking at whether to keep the two discussions separate or combine them either here or in the AToW forum. Just a heads up for later.
-
The one time I’ve had a chance to play atow I had fun. We made characters on the points system with the master jobs table as a starting point. While not as organic as lifepaths it got the job done and took a half hour to get going
-
Well, once the Beta testers (alpha testers?) get their NDA done with, maybe they can tell us. I took glance at the Quick Start samplings from Valiant rpg. (shrugs) its ok i guess i'm not sure how well it would do for Battletech.
-
Well I can see merging down to at least 2 threads. No need for two separate MW:Destiney threads but I can see keeping a separate AToW2ed thread as other ideas and direction of discussion is less out of bounds.
My thoughts on the Cue system? Every system that uses it that I've looked at has failed to get me to even want to try it. To me that is a sign of failure and I'd honestly go home and do something else if my group really tried to push it because I find it that bad of a match for what I want out of an RPG system.
-
Well I can see merging down to at least 2 threads. No need for two separate MW:Destiny threads but I can see keeping a separate AToW2ed thread as other ideas and direction of discussion is less out of bounds.
My thoughts on the Cue system? Every system that uses it that I've looked at has failed to get me to even want to try it. To me that is a sign of failure and I'd honestly go home and do something else if my group really tried to push it because I find it that bad of a match for what I want out of an RPG system.
Well one of the writers said it was changed, so we might well see what it's changed in comparison to current one version from Valiant.
-
Cue is too vague for me and when I look through the systems that use it I actually have a hard time answering the question of "How would I adjudicate a game in this system?" to the point I just can't emotionally invest in the system.
-
If they've managed to change it into something that I'm looking for in an RPG then it would be inaccurate to say it is based on the Cue system it'd be that different.
-
If they've managed to change it into something that I'm looking for in an RPG then it would be inaccurate to say it is based on the Cue system it'd be that different.
The definition of "based on the Cue system" seems to be very open to interpretation in that from the examples we have that can mean a wide variety of things with varying level of granularity. I plan to keep an open mind and see what the draft they plan to send to backers looks like before I start to judge the system.
-
the complexity of character creation is what has kept me from the BT roleplaying game scene.. when you read the rules for making a character and can't even sort out where to start despite examples given in the book, it is a no go for me.
It took a while, but I think...THINK....I've gotten the hang of it.
It isn't really that complex when you get down to it, but it is VERY badly laid out and has some weird decisions that do not make sense.
The rebate for example, doesn't do anything except add complexity and make the system mote confusing.
You also have a lot listed under Compulsion that would be better listed as a Quirk, you are awarded skills that would be better as a specialisation, the optimisation process removes a fair bit of flavour as well, a sidestep that reputations can be good and bad at the same time, and so on.
When it should just be....
Start with 4500 -5300 points.
Choose your faction
Choose your subfaction and era
Choose your phenotype
Assign base xps
Age...0-10. Stage 1
Age...11-16 Stage 2
Age...17-20 Stage 3...field skills get 20% off
Stage 4...20+
Assigning XPs, skills and traits as you go.
Then use the heroic rules from the Companion.
-
Granted I use a spreadsheet these days, but it's really not that complex.
Before doing any math, have an idea of generally what you want for a character. That should narrow down Affiliation, and Stages 1 and 2 pretty quickly. Stage 3 is a means to a Stage 4 end, and so they need to be considered together. Stages 3 and 4 can also be repeated (within limits).
Optimization and aging will yield more XP to spend, and you can use these to round out Attributes, Traits, or Skills as desired.
Even with a player who wanted to literally roll dice to randomly assign everything, we were done in under an hour.
With a reasonable player and GM, the characters produced feel like they belong in the BT universe in a way no previous edition could match.
-
Hi all.
I have merged the two Mechwarrior: Destiny threads, bringing one over from the AToW forum. The discussion and speculation are better suited to be nearer all the other new product threads in General Discussion.
-
Thanks Bedwyr! :thumbsup:
-
What's wrong with the CUE system? (Genuinely curious, I haven't played with it yet.)
I've deleted several detailed reasons why I do not like the cue system at all, but they are irrelevant. You can search and fins details about it, but its a pretty bland crunch free, rules lite system. That right there is going to make it a dead issue for most existing Battletech fans. This system doesn't have a name that will on its own drive any new players to a Battletech RPG, which is a small market anyway. Its market will be fans of the tabletop wargame primarily, (Battletech and Alpha Strike) or those who ever liked or played any previous edition of a Battletech RPG; and they will not like this system, because its not what anyone is wanting.
I'd urge Catalyst not to waste time on this project. Go for a revised ATOW second edition. Streamline creation and combat, revise some things that need tweaking, release as a PDF. Or just steal Shadowrun 5th edition, strip out magic, some gear, most of the matrix stuff, incorporate the mission errata. Or do nothing, which would still be a more financially advantageous option that making a Cue system based Battletech RPG.
-
All right... this coming weekend, I'll try to post a "streamlined" (or rather, fully explained) version of AToW character creation. It may be a lot of bookkeeping (which spreadsheets vastly simplify), but it's really not that hard. Really.
-
This system doesn't have a name that will on its own drive any new players to a Battletech RPG, which is a small market anyway.
in cases like battletech, it's the setting's job to entice people and the rules system's job to go down easy enough they get hooked. a huge part of the reason battletech is a small market is it's much closer to the deep end of mental investment, something i'm hoping alpha strike can help with by taking a turn as the "face" release. but a properly handled RPG would do this just as well!
I'd urge Catalyst not to waste time on this project. Go for a revised ATOW second edition.
if it got far enough for us to hear about it you're very likely a couple years late with that flippant remark, willie. while i agree with you that a revision of how AToW is handled could easily do the trick, this is all but assured to come out and f it does pick up a lot of fans, then we should be glad CGL rolled all boxcars, 'ight?
-
I've went to a streamlined pure point buy process. Forget lifepaths. Give people a fixed amount of points. Set a minimum and maximum age. Remove slow/fast learner. No form of school bonus. Then just buy what you want, straight out, looking at lifepaths as guidelines/reference material. Easy peasy.
-
For me, point buy drives more cookie cutter characters than Life Modules. Life Modules give you more interesting options when you're optimizing your points, looking where to invest those last 10-20 points.
-
I just went over the Valiant RPG Quick Start Rules...I hope Mechwarrior: Destiny is not based on these rules.
-
I just went over the Valiant RPG Quick Start Rules...I hope Mechwarrior: Destiny is not based on these rules.
some reasoning might be more productive to conversation, some of us have maybe been a little busy to see what you mean.... xp
-
I just went over the Valiant RPG Quick Start Rules...I hope Mechwarrior: Destiny is not based on these rules.
Yeah, i wasn't that inspired by it. I guess we will see.
-
Reprint from the AToW 2nd edition post
So to sum up the Cue system ( Shadowrun: Anarchy style)
1. Can't have more then 6 skills ever ( 5 active, 1 Knowledge) Great way to go when lack of diversity was the number one problem with 2nd.
2. All Spells/Cyber/Decks/Etc. are called Shadow amps and you are limited to 6
3. Cues are for lack of a better work catch phrases about your character that you are to use to tell a story (yes its a narrative game)
4. you get your skills/attributes/gear/weapons/contacts from a package related to the power level of the game chosen by the GM.
5.all characters get 2 advantages and one disadvantage.
6. Armor is bought on a +1 points bases with karma.
7 there are plot points that players can use to change the narrative for the GM/NPC/PC so if one of your teammates thinks it cool they can screw you to tell a cool story.
Overall it's a horrid game that never should have been made.
and the fact that CGL thinks it would be welcomed as the new Mechwarrior RPG shows how disconnected they have become to their player base, as if shadowrun 6th edition hadn't shown that already.
The game makes 2nd edition look like rocketscience.
-
For me, point buy drives more cookie cutter characters than Life Modules. Life Modules give you more interesting options when you're optimizing your points, looking where to invest those last 10-20 points.
I certainly encourage reading the paths as guidelines. But following the modules strictly by definition are just as much of a cookie cutter. It just comes down to whose cookie you want to make.
-
in cases like battletech, it's the setting's job to entice people and the rules system's job to go down easy enough they get hooked. a huge part of the reason battletech is a small market is it's much closer to the deep end of mental investment, something i'm hoping alpha strike can help with by taking a turn as the "face" release. but a properly handled RPG would do this just as well!
The settings pull in is from a fairly crunchy tabletop game. Even the Alpha Strike version is more crunchy than anything reflected by the cue system. Whatever product that gets you to the setting is pulling a segment less prone to favor a Cue system type game.
this is all but assured to come out and f it does pick up a lot of fans, then we should be glad CGL rolled all boxcars, 'ight?
I think the odds of it doing that make rolling boxcars look easy.
-
Reprint from the AToW 2nd edition post
So to sum up the Cue system ( Shadowrun: Anarchy style)
1. Can't have more then 6 skills ever ( 5 active, 1 Knowledge) Great way to go when lack of diversity was the number one problem with 2nd.
2. All Spells/Cyber/Decks/Etc. are called Shadow amps and you are limited to 6
3. Cues are for lack of a better work catch phrases about your character that you are to use to tell a story (yes its a narrative game)
4. you get your skills/attributes/gear/weapons/contacts from a package related to the power level of the game chosen by the GM.
5.all characters get 2 advantages and one disadvantage.
6. Armor is bought on a +1 points bases with karma.
7 there are plot points that players can use to change the narrative for the GM/NPC/PC so if one of your teammates thinks it cool they can screw you to tell a cool story.
Overall it's a horrid game that never should have been made.
and the fact that CGL thinks it would be welcomed as the new Mechwarrior RPG shows how disconnected they have become to their player base, as if shadowrun 6th edition hadn't shown that already.
The game makes 2nd edition look like rocketscience.
I have ran an Anarchy game. Didn't think it was too horrible, but not my favorite system to run by far. That said I would take that system over the mess of AToW, which I have also ran and the game was bogged down by Character creation and the very crunchy system. I liked 3rd, cept for the random character gen, and the many different weapon system skills in a mech I thought was stupid and so removed them in favor of one weapon skill and created weapon special advantages instead.
-
the character generation in 3rd edition was gonzo. the one major campaign we tried, i ended up with an ex Liao tank mechanic who was practically MacGyver and my friend, starting from the same background, ended up with five total skills and lost an arm along the way. His only useful skill - driving, which was negated by the missing arm. i can't recall many other times the group had that much fun. i understand why they changed it but damn that was entertaining.
-
So to sum up the Cue system ( Shadowrun: Anarchy style)
1. Can't have more then 6 skills ever ( 5 active, 1 Knowledge) Great way to go when lack of diversity was the number one problem with 2nd.
2. All Spells/Cyber/Decks/Etc. are called Shadow amps and you are limited to 6
3. Cues are for lack of a better work catch phrases about your character that you are to use to tell a story (yes its a narrative game)
4. you get your skills/attributes/gear/weapons/contacts from a package related to the power level of the game chosen by the GM.
5.all characters get 2 advantages and one disadvantage.
6. Armor is bought on a +1 points bases with karma.
7 there are plot points that players can use to change the narrative for the GM/NPC/PC so if one of your teammates thinks it cool they can screw you to tell a cool story.
Overall it's a horrid game that never should have been made.
and the fact that CGL thinks it would be welcomed as the new Mechwarrior RPG shows how disconnected they have become to their player base, as if shadowrun 6th edition hadn't shown that already.
i physically recoiled a little, reading that. i take it they're not planning on marketing this game to new players, because i can't see that system not getting turned into a revenge party by the average newbie group i taught.
-
the character generation in 3rd edition was gonzo. the one major campaign we tried, i ended up with an ex Liao tank mechanic who was practically MacGyver and my friend, starting from the same background, ended up with five total skills and lost an arm along the way. His only useful skill - driving, which was negated by the missing arm. i can't recall many other times the group had that much fun. i understand why they changed it but damn that was entertaining.
Yeah, 3rd ed character gen is problematic, it's a bit too likely to result in you getting injured, especially early on
-
Something tells me we are going to have the same back and forth this forum usually has with any given system:
We want details... Too many details, simplify it... Now simplified it too much!
-
I can see a possible market for a simple RPG add-on product to enhance the boardgame experience. Something filling the gap between Warchest campaign rules and full-on AToW roleplaying.
However, I'd expect such a product to connect to one or both of these rulesets, to give groups the option to scale their play detail level by switching between rules. From what's been said here so far, Destiny will be a standalone, completely unrelated and incompatible ruleset.
If true, that would be a surprising design decision.
-
Actually have friends who love the BTU thanks to the PC games but had the table top ruined for them thanks to rule lawyers making their first game a hour long debate over firing declaration.
They have played RPs with similar character builders as AToW but their first TW game had killed mech combat for them. Destiny having a standalone combat system may be what they are looking for.
-
I have ran an Anarchy game. Didn't think it was too horrible, but not my favorite system to run by far. That said I would take that system over the mess of AToW, which I have also ran and the game was bogged down by Character creation and the very crunchy system. I liked 3rd, cept for the random character gen, and the many different weapon system skills in a mech I thought was stupid and so removed them in favor of one weapon skill and created weapon special advantages instead.
I feel I have to be clearer about my response to this game.
The Cue system probably works well for the film noir/pulp sci-fi games it was designed for (Valiant/Cosmic patrol) two genres that I don't like all that much.
My issues comes from my firm belief that RPG mechanics should be constructed to fit the setting and not the setting getting shoehorned into the mechanics.
When you have an established setting with an existing fanbase, every effort should be made to allow the setting to dictated the mechanics and not be ham-stringed by existing mechanics that where never intended for the setting.
This was the main issues with the D20 crazes a few years back, you have companies trying to shoehorn settings into the D20 system that did not handle the nuances of the setting well (Rokugan d20) so the game felt flat. I used this as an example since one of my players for L5R 4th edition started with Rokugan d20 and disliked the game, but after I convinced him to give the R&K version a try he loved it.
So While I don't like the Cue system, it was meant for genres that are not to my taste, so that's to be expected.
I don't feel it works well with cyberpunk or hard sci-fi like Shadowrun and Battletech.
-
i physically recoiled a little, reading that. i take it they're not planning on marketing this game to new players, because i can't see that system not getting turned into a revenge party by the average newbie group i taught.
Now you know why I had my reservations ^-^
-
I don't feel it works well with cyberpunk or hard sci-fi like Shadowrun and Battletech.
Possibly...do you have a system in mind that does?
-
Possibly...do you have a system in mind that does?
I don't have any issues with Mechwarrior 2 or AToW if the character creation issues are fixed.
And I think Shadowrun 5th edition just needed some tweaking.
Both systems designed for their settings that at least to me worked.
-
AToW really does work very well for Battletech.
But to get back on topic I remain convinced that Cue based systems are not for me. At the same time though if this does work for Catalyst, so be it. I will actually be quite happy for them.
-
If AToW is maintained in parallel, AND the Cue thing draws in new players, I won't have any objections, even if I never play the Cue version.
-
Don't think there is any one system that makes everyone happy, may as well try something new and see what happens.
-
Is SR6's system based on cue system?
-
I just don't see how it can mesh with Total Warfare.
Is SR6's system based on cue system?
EDIT: Ignore what I said before. it is NOT the cue system. From what I've read, it's a more streamline version of 5th with some big tweaks to edge.
-
I just don't see how it can mesh with Total Warfare.
Yeah. It's just modified to have a GM and to insure that you're still rolling wads of d6s.
Are you 100% sure? I am under the impression that Shadowrun: Anarchy uses the Cue system and that SR6 does not.
-
Are you 100% sure? I am under the impression that Shadowrun: Anarchy uses the Cue system and that SR6 does not.
Bah! Sorry, misread it. >.< Post fixed.
I'm actually looking forward to giving 6th ed a try. Sounds like they simplified it a lot without going overboard like anarchy.
-
Don't think there is any one system that makes everyone happy, may as well try something new and see what happens.
Certainly true and if this brings new fans into the fold so much the better.
I for one am willing to say from what I've seen of Cue systems, and I have looked at more than one version of it, it isn't for me but that doesn't make it bad.
-
I can see a possible market for a simple RPG add-on product to enhance the boardgame experience. Something filling the gap between Warchest campaign rules and full-on AToW roleplaying.
However, I'd expect such a product to connect to one or both of these rulesets, to give groups the option to scale their play detail level by switching between rules. From what's been said here so far, Destiny will be a standalone, completely unrelated and incompatible ruleset.
If true, that would be a surprising design decision.
Yeah, unless they make it an overlay for TW/AS l can’t see it working out well.
-
All right... this coming weekend, I'll try to post a "streamlined" (or rather, fully explained) version of AToW character creation. It may be a lot of bookkeeping (which spreadsheets vastly simplify), but it's really not that hard. Really.
OK, here goes...
First, before doing any math, get an idea of the kind of character you want. This should suggest age, Affiliation, and at least the kind of Higher Education (Stage 3) you should be looking at. The Stage 3 you're considering will likely drive some choices for Stages 1 and 2 (e.g., the pre-requisites for Military Academy). Age will suggest how many and what kinds of Stage 4 modules you take. Try to avoid repeating Stage 4 modules other than those that don't grant Attributes (e.g., Civilian Job).
Second, do a first approximation by simply adding up the top line costs of the modules you're considering. You should compare this to 5,000 (or whatever your GM gives you) plus 100 XP per year over 21 if you're IS, or 18 if you're clan (or -100 XP per year under). Add any particularly expensive Traits you want to take (say, 800 XP for that Assault 'mech). If the two numbers are within about 1,000 XP of each other, your concept is probably doable, though you may need to take some negative traits to balance things out.
Now you come to the bookkeeping. There are several spreadsheets posted on the boards here that can help with this (not just mine). BiggRigg42 has also done a few YouTube videos on the process. If you insist on doing it by hand, the best way to keep track of things is to group them by Attributes, Traits and Skills per module.
Rules of thumb:
1) Shoot for minimum Attributes of 4 (except EDG). This is "average", and also the minimum score that won't inflict skill penalties.
2) If you have a minimum requirement above 4, consider taking an Attribute to 7 (where you get a +1 to related skills).
3) As others have noted, Fast Learner will pay for itself if you invest in enough skills. Similarly, if you have few enough skills, and don't plan to play long term, Slow Learner may be worth it.
4) Don't forget the aging effects on Attributes on page 333.
5) Also don't forget that you must purchase 20 XP in an Affiliation Primary or Secondary Language, 20 XP in Language/English, and 10 XP in Perception (per page 52, under Universal Fixed Experience Points; this section also ensures you have at least 100 XP in each Attribute).
6) The Skill Field/Rebate rules are on pages 70-71. The gist of these is that you pay 30 XP to get 30 XP in each skill listed in the field (Fields are chosen from the options presented in the Master Schools List on pages 72-73; the Master Fields List is on pages 82-85), and THEN get 6 XP per skill back as Flexible XP to spend during optimization. Basically, you're only paying 24 XP per skill for 30 XP in those skills.
7) If optimizing without a spreadsheet, the table on page 85 is your guide for skills. Attributes and Traits mostly cost XP evenly divisible by 100, so optimizing those should be even simpler.
8) Optimization is simply the harvesting of "excess" points that don't get you to the next level of Attribute, Trait or Skill, and you can spend them anyway you like.
9) Remember that negative Traits acquired via Life Modules don't count toward the maximum 10% of starting XP limit on negative Traits. The limit only applies to negative Traits you take above and beyond those. This is one of the reasons the "first approximation" works.
10) Don't forget Attribute minimums and pre-requisites for Modules or Skill Fields.
-
...plus 100 XP per year over 21 if you're IS, or 18 if you're clan (or -100 XP per year under).
Where is this in the rule book?
-
Page 49, under "Starting Allotments".
-
Only affirms my belief that the character creation rules aren't difficult, it's just how poorly they're written/organized.
-
Organization could use some work, sure. Of course, that applies across ALL the rule books...
-
rules complexity, especially front-loaded complexity, is a problem for some rules systems. While i do enjoy system complexity, its better when the complexity isnt as front-loaded. layout is also important, the core rules need to be easy to find. if it takes too long to make a character, then you lose players.
AToW had too much front-loaded complexity, combined with a lack of any clear example of how it should be done. I had one look at it, and gave up on the edition entirely. never played it, never finished reading it. its just collecting dust next to my copy of Cyborg Commando.
-
Well, if you ever decide to give it another chance, there are a few of us here who are more than willing to help. When I have players do character creation for me, I have them tell me what they want, then develop a strawman for the both of us to tweak.
-
Bah! Sorry, misread it. >.< Post fixed.
I'm actually looking forward to giving 6th ed a try. Sounds like they simplified it a lot without going overboard like anarchy.
The issues with 6th is that they did little streamlining and much more simplifying to the point where logic was thrown out the window for ease of use.
examples;
1. Armor does little to nothing in the game.
Armor added to body gives you a DR (defense rating) and that is compared to the weapons AR (attack rating) if DR is 4 more then AR you get +1 edge, if AR is 4 more then DR the attacker gets +1 edge, if neither is 4 higher its a wash. Armor does nothing but that and if your AR/DR is more then 4+ you get nothing more. By the way there really is nothing all that great about +1 edge you need much more for it to truly be effective. Also armor doesn't make you any harder to hit or provide any damage reduction.
2. Modifiers are mostly gone.
The edge system is the core of the game and tries and fails to handle all modifiers in the game. Edge gain is also limited to gaining only max 2 per turn/round (there is currently a fight on this one) so any gain after that is lost, you are also limited to carrying only 7 edge at any one time, and edge gains have some logic defying rules behind it.
Like the example most used on the Shadowrun forum: A sniper in a hurricane fires at a NPC also in the hurricane, since both combatants are suffering the same effects neither gains edge or suffers any modifiers, so its a wash and the sniper attacks as if he was unaffected and it was a bright and shiny day.
overall the system is a mess and needs a complete rewrite to be playable.
-
There is an interview with Brent Evan's at GenCon which provides some new information regarding Destiny.
Apparently a Clan companion book is planned, GMs are optional and there will be some material designed to add a light role-playing touch to a traditional BT tabletop game.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq30RWzIXaU&feature=youtu.be
-
The issues with 6th is that they did little streamlining and much more simplifying to the point where logic was thrown out the window for ease of use.
examples;
1. Armor does little to nothing in the game.
Armor added to body gives you a DR (defense rating) and that is compared to the weapons AR (attack rating) if DR is 4 more then AR you get +1 edge, if AR is 4 more then DR the attacker gets +1 edge, if neither is 4 higher its a wash. Armor does nothing but that and if your AR/DR is more then 4+ you get nothing more. By the way there really is nothing all that great about +1 edge you need much more for it to truly be effective. Also armor doesn't make you any harder to hit or provide any damage reduction.
2. Modifiers are mostly gone.
The edge system is the core of the game and tries and fails to handle all modifiers in the game. Edge gain is also limited to gaining only max 2 per turn/round (there is currently a fight on this one) so any gain after that is lost, you are also limited to carrying only 7 edge at any one time, and edge gains have some logic defying rules behind it.
Like the example most used on the Shadowrun forum: A sniper in a hurricane fires at a NPC also in the hurricane, since both combatants are suffering the same effects neither gains edge or suffers any modifiers, so its a wash and the sniper attacks as if he was unaffected and it was a bright and shiny day.
overall the system is a mess and needs a complete rewrite to be playable.
Gotcha, stick with SR5.
-
The issues with 6th is that they did little streamlining and much more simplifying to the point where logic was thrown out the window for ease of use.
examples;
1. Armor does little to nothing in the game.
Armor added to body gives you a DR (defense rating) and that is compared to the weapons AR (attack rating) if DR is 4 more then AR you get +1 edge, if AR is 4 more then DR the attacker gets +1 edge, if neither is 4 higher its a wash. Armor does nothing but that and if your AR/DR is more then 4+ you get nothing more. By the way there really is nothing all that great about +1 edge you need much more for it to truly be effective. Also armor doesn't make you any harder to hit or provide any damage reduction.
2. Modifiers are mostly gone.
The edge system is the core of the game and tries and fails to handle all modifiers in the game. Edge gain is also limited to gaining only max 2 per turn/round (there is currently a fight on this one) so any gain after that is lost, you are also limited to carrying only 7 edge at any one time, and edge gains have some logic defying rules behind it.
Like the example most used on the Shadowrun forum: A sniper in a hurricane fires at a NPC also in the hurricane, since both combatants are suffering the same effects neither gains edge or suffers any modifiers, so its a wash and the sniper attacks as if he was unaffected and it was a bright and shiny day.
overall the system is a mess and needs a complete rewrite to be playable.
I dont think its an unplayable mess. I can make a character relatively easily. I can also go through combat as a mage and not be nuking every group of enemy combatants with one or two spells. I love magic users and the system can be broken in that I can push hard, one shot a boss, and have a bloody nose from doing so, but be fine overall in SR5. Magic is more balanced in SR6, now am I happy with how edge is implemented? No not really, but to say the game is unplayable is a bit hyperbolic. Its like me saying Atow is unplayable because the combat system sucks. In reality the game is unplayable because how many people can get past making a character.....
Am I happy with how the soaking of damage works now, nope. The thing is damage values are lowered by quite a bit, instead of doing 6 DV before adding hits, now Its 3 before adding hits. most pistols do 2 DV maybe 3 DV. AP is not a thing, so now I just roll body. Dodging is now more of a thing and blocking with your blade is now a thing in close combat.
-
Too much Shadowrun in the BattleTech thread...
-
There is an interview with Brent Evan's at GenCon which provides some new information regarding Destiny.
Apparently a Clan companion book is planned, GMs are optional and there will be some material designed to add a light role-playing touch to a traditional BT tabletop game.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq30RWzIXaU&feature=youtu.be
The last bit is what I’m mostly interested getting from the system though a How to Clan supplement would not be unwelcome
-
There is an interview with Brent Evan's at GenCon which provides some new information regarding Destiny.
Apparently a Clan companion book is planned, GMs are optional and there will be some material designed to add a light role-playing touch to a traditional BT tabletop game.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq30RWzIXaU&feature=youtu.be
I like companion books and supplements. Any BT-based RPG doesn't need the supplements as much since we already have a wealth of table top resources, but The MechWarrior's Guide to... series for MW3rd are still some of my most-read books.
-
Did Brent happen to mention anything about AToW continuing in parallel? ???
-
Did Brent happen to mention anything about AToW continuing in parallel? ???
I don't think it came up, but it didn't sound like he was thinking of it as a replacement.
An RPG for people who have never played an RPG before was the basic pitch, which sounds like it would have it's own niche (consistent with how this system has been used for Shadowrun I suppose).
-
Did Brent happen to mention anything about AToW continuing in parallel? ???
He didn't (tp my knowledge).
But AToW and Destiny seem to be so inherently different that I reckon they can co-exist without much overlap; and perhaps the latter may yet serve as an entryway to RPing in the BT universe, thus promoting the former at least indirectly.
-
He didn't (tp my knowledge).
But AToW and Destiny seem to be so inherently different that I reckon they can co-exist without much overlap; and perhaps the latter may yet serve as an entryway to RPing in the BT universe, thus promoting the former at least indirectly.
I don't know about that, I see AToW as a pretty much dead/abandoned game in the support it gets.
There have been many books that where great places for AToW info, but the most we got was a small regional cost list or here's the affiliations of this time list that was rarely more the one or two pages. Overall I'm not sure if CGL is planning a AToW revised/MechWarrior 5th edition RPG to come out after MechWarrior: Destiny or just going to drop the idea of a full RPG and push MechWarrior: Destiny as a replacement.
It strikes me as far fetched to think that CGL will do anything to support AToW with MechWarrior: Destiny coming out as they did little to support it without another RPG to promote.
-
Thanks hf22 and Frabby! :thumbsup:
I think Frabby's point is as long as AToW remains available, Destiny might encourage more people to try it.
-
Well, best us RPG-fans can hope for, is a permanent RPG-section in the new magazine with scenarios and such. And for these, double stats for AToW and MW:D should be doable.
-
Thanks hf22 and Frabby! :thumbsup:
I think Frabby's point is as long as AToW remains available, Destiny might encourage more people to try it.
Not sure about your preferences, but most of the players I know and I normally will not run a RPG game where we can't get a dead tree copy.
As AToW is not available in hard copy on DTRPG or the CGL store you would have to get it from Amazon or eBay
Cheapest on Amazon: $274 dollars
Cheapest on eBay: $150 dollars
As there doesn't seem to be any indication that CGL will be putting out a new or revised print of the game anytime soon, I can't see MechWarrior: Destiny encourage many player to switch to it, also keep in mind that AToW is a completely different type of game then MechWarrior: Destiny and players who would enjoy it are not really the type that would fined AToW appealing.
-
I kind of wished they would just use a d20 system like D&D, but with support for mech combat so you don't have to setup a Total warfare or Alpha Strike game. It is a system that most RPG players know which would bring more people on board. But I hope this new way to do role playing will work out.
-
Personally I wouldn't want to see D20 used for a BT RPG, I find setting-specific rules so much better than generic or adapted systems. Our local gaming group has stayed with MW2E for simplicity and easy integration with tabletop BT. In fact I didn't realise they were considered separate things for a year or two! ;D
I'll give MW:Destiny a look, but from what I'm hearing it it's unlikely to suit me. OTOH I think Shadowrun peaked with 3rd Ed so YMMV
-
I like using the TT rules for mech combat in an RPG game as that is what most players are familiar with, and those players that are new can get into a pick up game with out being confused by a different set of rules for the same game.
-
[snip]without being confused by a different set of rules for the same game.
Exactly! I'm playing a MW2e/BT game right now with two new players and the fact that the MW CHR sheet says "Pilot (Mech) 5+, Gunnery (Mech) 4+" exactly the same as the tabletop makes it so much simpler for them.
-
Euphonium: Soul brother! I was one of the ones advocating to a return to 2d6 (from 2d10?? in MW3e) for AToW.
Victor_shaw: My preferences are for consistent mechanics from top to bottom, which in my mind means 2d6 for everything. Destiny sounds diceless, or at least so divorced from table top (TW) rules as to be completely alien.
-
Is anarchy diceless? Valiant and cosmic patrol both use dice
-
Anarchy definitely uses dice. And CGL announced MWD to be d6-based.
-
My mistake, but I stand by the second half of my sentence...
-
Euphonium: Soul brother! I was one of the ones advocating to a return to 2d6 (from 2d10?? in MW3e) for AToW.
Victor_shaw: My preferences are for consistent mechanics from top to bottom, which in my mind means 2d6 for everything. Destiny sounds diceless, or at least so divorced from table top (TW) rules as to be completely alien.
I was talking about pdf vs. dead tree preferences, but I agree that a RPG should flow into the mechanics from its connected system.
and believe me I am not looking forward to Destiny.
-
Ah... as much as I like DTF, pdf is what I mostly have these days. The extortionate prices on Amazon/eBay make me wonder how high those prices have to be to send a "reprint this" signal.
-
The extortionate prices on Amazon/eBay make me wonder how high those prices have to be to send a "reprint this" signal.
It's not just the price, it's the volume too. It doesn't matter if they're selling for $5,000 each on the secondary market if they're only selling one copy a year.
-
Ah... as much as I like DTF, pdf is what I mostly have these days. The extortionate prices on Amazon/eBay make me wonder how high those prices have to be to send a "reprint this" signal.
Prices on eBay have nothing to do with a products actual value, someone once tried to sell a Baen CD on eBay for $100, and this a CD that you got for free inside a $50 book (And is stamped with a not for sale warning)
-
Euphonium: Soul brother! I was one of the ones advocating to a return to 2d6 (from 2d10?? in MW3e) for AToW.
I've never seen the point of keeping the RPG tied to a 2d6 system. Its terribly limiting, and leaves no real granularity. Moving back to d6 was one of the biggest disappointments to me of ATOW.
-
I've never seen the point of keeping the RPG tied to a 2d6 system. Its terribly limiting, and leaves no real granularity. Moving back to d6 was one of the biggest disappointments to me of ATOW.
If anything moving the table top over to 2d10 might have been a better move.
-
The point is integration with the table top. Using different dice is the exact opposite of that.
-
3rd edition was the best RPG that was seen for battletech and if players couldn't read a simple table that translated the numbers into TT stats they shouldn't be playing the game it was simple I must point out that the book wasn't very well laid out but the system was better then 2nd edition and ATOW is awful and should never have been made so MechWarrior: Destiny cant be any worse then that
-
I disagree. 3rd edition was using Traveler tactics from the 1970s in character creation (i.e., you could DIE, or end up with a character so handicapped as to be unplayable, and the spectrum wasn't just on that end... you could end up with wildly successful characters right out of the gate, completely out of balance with the other player characters). AToW doesn't suffer from that. The skill specialization system was also unwieldy in play. To drive anything with a mixed armament (AC/Energy/Missile) required three different gunnery skills. It was better in some ways than 2nd Edition, in that it gave you much more well rounded characters. AToW achieves that with a simpler skill system and organic integration with the table top game.
Personally, I think AToW is the best RPG system BattleTech has seen so far, and Destiny is in no way poised to replace it. Given the reaction to other incarnations of the Cue system, it sounds like there's plenty of scope to be worse.
And to be clear, every time I've said AToW isn't that hard, I've offered to help people work through their difficulties, not said "they shouldn't be playing the game".
-
3rd ed character creation was nuts. if you ended up with a garbage character, the most exciting part of the campaign was literally over and you had very little incentive to stay alive.
Personally, I think AToW is the best RPG system BattleTech has seen so far, and Destiny is in no way poised to replace it. Given the reaction to other incarnations of the Cue system, it sounds like there's plenty of scope to be worse.
And to be clear, every time I've said AToW isn't that hard, I've offered to help people work through their difficulties, not said "they shouldn't be playing the game".
it's a good system. and things can always be worse. i think we use the wrong word with atow character creation - it's cumbersome... maybe confusing - but not hard.
-
I agree with the first, and mostly with the second. The layout could be better, but it is comprehensible.
-
once i figured out you pay for the module, not the module and the items in the module (aka paying double), it went a lot smoother
-
The point is integration with the table top. Using different dice is the exact opposite of that.
Integration with the table top inst needed on a dice level. it serves no purpose. Third had the solution. Compare your Success number to a chart, that's your tabletop game skill, if you weren't going to use the full RPG integration rules.
-
Which doesn't solve any of its other problems...
-
And to be clear, every time I've said AToW isn't that hard, I've offered to help people work through their difficulties, not said "they shouldn't be playing the game".
I agree. ATOW isn't hard as RPG's go.
-
So what is Shadowrun Anarky like?
-
is it really so hard to understand that 3rd editions character creation allowed rerolls with edge and losing its threshold that mitigated the worst of any disasters and well I agree that you could have someone very underwhelming made with poor results,
it was fast to ditch a character as you can tell in moments that the skills or traits were garbage and start again it didn't take long the hard part was the maths afterword to make sure your numbers added up still better then ATOW that had pointless maths for no value and made the system worse in every way it didn't modernises the system well and frankly to me was a step back not to mention 2 D6 is so limiting a factor for systems
-
is it really so hard to understand that 3rd editions character creation allowed rerolls with edge and losing its threshold that mitigated the worst of any disasters and well I agree that you could have someone very underwhelming made with poor results,
it was fast to ditch a character as you can tell in moments that the skills or traits were garbage and start again it didn't take long the hard part was the maths afterword to make sure your numbers added up still better then ATOW that had pointless maths for no value and made the system worse in every way it didn't modernises the system well and frankly to me was a step back not to mention 2 D6 is so limiting a factor for systems
It was too random, it was too fluky, it took up a LOT of page space and time and content and it really wasn't worth the effort. The game itself was fine, and the character creation was fun in its way and...you said it your self...MATH. ATOWs character creation has its own set of flaws.
And, from my pov, many of the problems stem from trying to adapt a 2D6 system that lacks granularity (but doesn't suffer too much from that lack) into a gaming environment that requires granularity. As stated, it probably would have been a better idea to switch the TT game to a 2D10 or 3D6 system and then build the RPG combat system around that.
-
Trying to rebuild the core BattleTech system around different n-dice being the *best* solution? For the sake of the much less popular RPG? ???
-
Trying to rebuild the core BattleTech system around different n-dice being the *best* solution? For the sake of the much less popular RPG? ???
The 2D6 system not having sufficient granularity is a problem for the TT as well...just not as much as one.
-
The 2D6 system not having sufficient granularity is a problem for the TT as well...just not as much as one.
That's true, especially with pilots above veteran level. And with vehicle crews that benefit from multiple targets rules for mulit-crew vehicles.
-
The 2D6 system not having sufficient granularity is a problem for the TT as well...just not as much as one.
An option might be to use the RPG to 'beta test' a new engine. Think of how Elements of D&D 4th edition showed up in the late 3e optional rules. or how some of the stuff in Pathfinder and Starfinder showed up in pathfinder 2e. I do think a 3d6 Battletech would be an option
-
2d6 has the huge advantage of familiarity to completely new players (i.e., no prior TT or RPG experience).
I also find it odd to see complaints about too much math alongside "granularity" arguments for 2d10... ::)
-
2d6 has the huge advantage of familiarity to completely new players (i.e., no prior TT or RPG experience).
If they are new, it has no advantage. Rolling any dice in an RPG format will be new to them, so no need to stick to a limiting, poor scaling 2d6 system
-
So what is Shadowrun Anarky like?
I would recommend asking in the shadowrun forums. There must be some people who like it since they've released at least one more book for it and I think destiny is their 4th(?) universe they've used the system.
-
If they are new, it has no advantage. Rolling any dice in an RPG format will be new to them, so no need to stick to a limiting, poor scaling 2d6 system
I disagree. Many board popular board games use 2d6 (Monopoly, anyone?)...
-
Okay but what about good games?
-
The sales figures would like to have a word with you...
-
from my pov, many of the problems stem from trying to adapt a 2D6 system that lacks granularity <snip> into a gaming environment that requires granularity.
Does the RPG gaming environment require granularity? I would say that four levels of proficiency (especially on a 2d6 curve where each level is substantial) is plenty. I think the problem is more that intermediate levels of experience don't have enough kinds of things to flex on and differentiate themselves (and which is different from wishing for skill bloat).
-
The sales figures would like to have a word with you...
Ah, yes, that most final declaration of quality: popularity.
I miss the four or five years when Twilight was better than Lord of the Rings. ::)
-
Twilight novels were really more popular than Tolkien's masterpieces? That could be ascribed to there simply being more people alive today than when Tolkien was writing. Look at the current sales figures, and I think you'll find Monopoly (all variants) still outsells anything we do with minis (GW's success (as documented by no less than The Economist) notwithstanding).
-
Ah, yes, that most final declaration of quality: popularity.
Oh yes, let's dismiss sales figures for what random dude on the Internet says is good. What could go wrong? :)
-
Oh yes, let's dismiss sales figures for what random dude on the Internet says is good. What could go wrong? :)
Have you played a game of Monopoly lately? It's awful. It was designed to be awful and succeeded admirably.
-
I've repeatedly seen Monopoly held up as an example of bad game design. I don't deny Monopoly is popular, but popular is not the same as good.
-
For a game that's been around since the Great Depression I would say Monopoly has done pretty darn well.
-
Have you played a game of Monopoly lately? It's awful. It was designed to be awful and succeeded admirably.
Yes. Actually more often than I’ve played BattleTech this year. And that part is true for a VAST majority of the world. You aren’t winning that one.
-
I HATE monopoly... I also have two copies in my house
-
As someone who's dice have been so against them that if I wanted Edge in 3rd on multiple characters(it was just a truly bad methodology IMO) or that solved the imbalance of the life paths and that it wasn't like 3rd didn't have other issues too(damage resolution tables I'm looking at you) I'll take AToW's do 90% of the math once in character creation over 3rd every time.
-
2d6 has the huge advantage of familiarity to completely new players (i.e., no prior TT or RPG experience).
I also find it odd to see complaints about too much math alongside "granularity" arguments for 2d10... ::)
Well, you don't need math to understand the concept that sometimes +1 is a major difference and sometimes a minor, or that a result of 2-12 gives fewer results than 3-18 or 2-20
There are three alternate systems I would consider potentially suitable for BT in the never event that it is redone.
3D6....216 outcomes, retains the familiarity of D6s, allows for interesting combos such as doubles or triples but it still has the problem of being a curve - it is just flatter
2D10...100 possible outcomes, offers interesting combos such as doubles or percentiles, but it is still a curve, just flatter. Not to mention, a lot pf the conversion work has already been done for MW3.
1D20...it is one dice, and you read the result directly,it isn't a curve and it lacks interesting combos such as doubles.
Any of these could potentially fill in.
-
Let me just plant the flag pole for sticking with the table top's 2d6 right here (again). Anything else needlessly complicates a casual gamer's integration into other levels of the game.
-
Have you played a game of Monopoly lately? It's awful. It was designed to be awful and succeeded admirably.
Is not. You just jumped the shark
-
OK Monopoly is boring as hell I will give you that much but that alone doesn't make it awful.
It's a boardgame that does what it was designed t do, entertain a family for the night.
The dice system is the same one that is used in most if not all boardgames of its era for movement.
So outside of it's popularity as a family/party game what does this have to do with Mechwarrior RPG?
As for the question of 3rd vs. 4th.
I personally would pick 2nd every time.
The simple fact is that the Battletech universe is a boardgaming universe first and foremost.
it's not L5R, shadowrun, D&D,etc.
The fact that they have an RPG is pushing for a fanbase that is not normally interested in that type of game.
And the fact that it has a fanbase within battletech players is amazing.
As for Mechwarrior: Destiny
It suffers from the same issues that a lot of RPG including shadowrun 6th ED have these days.
Catchphrasitus: Simplified, streamlined, easy to learn, faster, storytelling.
The problem here is that these terms tend to only appeal to part-time, casual-gamer's
The type that will give you a quick first book sales high, but never provide a sold sales base going forward.
And the idea that it can be used as a intro drug for the core RPG is silly.
That's like saying because they like Monopoly we can use it as a gateway into Twilight Imperium.
Now will it get CGL a quick buck, sure will it be sustainable from this, not likely.
-
The real question is, have you ever played Monopoly without any house rules(like collecting cash in the free parking spot)? It's those rules that make the game so awful. Everyone always blows off the bidding rules too, and those can cut the game time in half.
As for Mechwarrior: Destiny
It suffers from the same issues that a lot of RPG including shadowrun 6th ED have these days.
Catchphrasitus: Simplified, streamlined, easy to learn, faster, storytelling.
The problem here is that these terms tend to only appeal to part-time, casual-gamer's
The type that will give you a quick first book sales high, but never provide a sold sales base going forward.
I do wonder who it's going to appeal to. Anarchy made sense in theory since there's people out there that love the shadowrun world, but felt 5th ed was way too over complicated. In my opinion it went way too far, but it still made sense. For battletech though, I'm not so sure. Isn't battletech's real draw its mechs, and not it's potential for roleplaying?
Here's a thought, what if instead of being designed to integrate easily into Battletech, Destiny is designed to integrate with Alpha Strike?
-
Here's a thought, what if instead of being designed to integrate easily into Battletech, Destiny is designed to integrate with Alpha Strike?
<Insert Groucho Marx meme here> I think he said the secret word!
This idea or thought process literally makes Destiny more interesting to me right now than anytime since it was announced. The RPGs have, historically, shoehorned themselves into the table top, and I can't find any rules in Alpha Strike or AToW that would help players integrate the two systems.
Destiny just might be that missing key...
-
<Insert Groucho Marx meme here> I think he said the secret word!
This idea or thought process literally makes Destiny more interesting to me right now than anytime since it was announced. The RPGs have, historically, shoehorned themselves into the table top, and I can't find any rules in Alpha Strike or AToW that would help players integrate the two systems.
Destiny just might be that missing key...
Except, The type of gamers that a narrative game like the cue system will bring in are likely not going to be to interested in any of the boardgames.
That's not saying that like Anarchy, there will not be a niche group of battletech gamers that are into it.
But this doesn't mean it will be any good for Battletech overall, as it will just divert more resources away from AToW or its successors.
Or lead to another shadowrun 6th.
Overall I see this as being a bad thing for the RPG players in general.
And as seen with shadowrun.
CGL is going to go where the money lead even if it's away from long time supports of battletech.
-
The problem with Monopoly is that it was originally designed to not be fun - it was meant to be an indictment of the concepts of real estate and renting, but it was sold to Parker Brothers by an opportunist who claimed he had invented it and omitted the moralistic elements. They also bought the original version and released it, but it was not as popular as the Monopoly branding.
So if you don't enjoy playing the game? Well, that's the point.
-
the unrelated discusssion of how awful monopoly is side, i have to consider AToW a failure simply because it was impossible for me to get new players "hooked" with it- i blame most of this on the way the material is presented but there's a lot of stuff that's just complicated for its own sake or abbreviated because it "looks clean". which rapidly saps all the interest out of new players, having a crusty vet on-hand for motivation shouldn't be required of a game.
If they are new, it has no advantage. Rolling any dice in an RPG format will be new to them, so no need to stick to a limiting, poor scaling 2d6 system
in my experience, sticking to 2D6 has the HUGE advantage that people with no RPG experience will both have them in their home and understand how to read them off without questions. they can buy the book and nothing else, and then just take the dice from monopoly to play.
it also lets them work with a fairly familiar and easy to understand probability curve, which is probably something.
-
As for Mechwarrior: Destiny
It suffers from the same issues that a lot of RPG including shadowrun 6th ED have these days.
Catchphrasitus: Simplified, streamlined, easy to learn, faster, storytelling.
The problem here is that these terms tend to only appeal to part-time, casual-gamer's
The type that will give you a quick first book sales high, but never provide a sold sales base going forward.
Please keep it to Battletech, Shadowrun 6e is its own thing. I know you have Beef with CGL with what they are doing with Shadowrun, keep it to those forums. Thank You.
You like AToW. Thats fine, the issue is getting people to play. People can't get through the character creation. The Cue system is not perfect, but I bet that you get more players with it then you would if you went with AToW revision. ( admittedly you re do the character creation you solve a major issue and also the confusing layout of the book.)
I am willing to wait for the Beta to come out and playtest that, giving back feedback for the Devs to make it better. Am I going to be happy with everything in the system, no....
-
And those of us who like AToW will keep working to make it better too. I just don't want to see AToW tossed on the scrap heap of history like 2nd edition.
-
And those of us who like AToW will keep working to make it better too. I just don't want to see AToW tossed on the scrap heap of history like 2nd edition.
100% agree.
-
I am willing to wait for the Beta to come out and playtest that, giving back feedback for the Devs to make it better. Am I going to be happy with everything in the system, no....
Isn't the expected release December of this year? If that's the case, I can't see feed back from the beta going very far unless someone finds something completely out of wack.
-
I am kind of looking forward to something not overly complicated to play with my son
-
And those of us who like AToW will keep working to make it better too. I just don't want to see AToW tossed on the scrap heap of history like 2nd edition.
Same, I would like to see AtoW 2nd ed to be priority based system if they could. Point based systems tend to get people to look another way. I do like the Life mods though, its just that a point based system like I said makes people nervous. I dont know if you could link the two creation methods.
-
As implemented, 2nd edition had point-based aspects too, just a layer down from the priorities. I think the way AToW did it was a bit more straight forward in that respect. The modules are really one of the system's strengths, I think.
-
Isn't the expected release December of this year? If that's the case, I can't see feed back from the beta going very far unless someone finds something completely out of wack.
BETA testing isn't development. It's to have fresh eyes on it to see if something obvious was overlooked. I see this in software BETAs as well; people sign up expecting to be like a project manager, directing where the program goes, then are disappointed/angry when all of their suggestions are "ignored".
-
Well in some cases you can point out balancing issues or bottle necks. Give feedback on a new mechanic and give some fine adjustments. But your right, your not changing the system from the ground up if you hate the system.
-
The problem with Monopoly is that it was originally designed to not be fun - it was meant to be an indictment of the concepts of real estate and renting, but it was sold to Parker Brothers by an opportunist who claimed he had invented it and omitted the moralistic elements. They also bought the original version and released it, but it was not as popular as the Monopoly branding.
So if you don't enjoy playing the game? Well, that's the point.
IIRC, the original version of The Landlord's Game included what we'd call the classic Monopoly rules as a variant meant to be didactic also ("see? we told you that the fat cats would just screw you over. Maybe next time you'll listen to us.") However, people actually enjoyed that version, and to the creators' dismay, that seems the have been the one that got played the most, and that was the one that got sold to Parker Bros.
-
BETA testing isn't development. It's to have fresh eyes on it to see if something obvious was overlooked. I see this in software BETAs as well; people sign up expecting to be like a project manager, directing where the program goes, then are disappointed/angry when all of their suggestions are "ignored".
Yes, but if the game is coming out in 4 months and the beta hasn't even been released yet, I don't see any kind of feed back making a difference unless someone finds something like, "hey, you forgot the entire chapter on tanks."
Pretty much what happened with riggers in Anarchy if I remember correctly.
-
I just hope this thing goes back to it's roots of 2nd Edition. That was simple, fast paced, and integrated PERFECTLY with Battletech and Aerotech. I am NOT a fan of them making a new system that's completely different from Battletech and won't seemlessly integrate with it. They need to use the character creation from Shadowrun and the mechanics of second ed. That would work and work awesome.
-
Yes, but if the game is coming out in 4 months and the beta hasn't even been released yet, I don't see any kind of feed back making a difference unless someone finds something like, "hey, you forgot the entire chapter on tanks."
Pretty much what happened with riggers in Anarchy if I remember correctly.
Beta testing won't change the product into something it's not. If there's a mechanic that isn't working, or something is missing, or something isn't stated clearly, those can all be fixed.
It won't change an action RPG into a turn-based RPG.
But lots of things can change in beta.
-
And anything duh-stupid that's missing is more often than not "out of scope".
-
Beta testing won't change the product into something it's not. If there's a mechanic that isn't working, or something is missing, or something isn't stated clearly, those can all be fixed.
It won't change an action RPG into a turn-based RPG.
But lots of things can change in beta.
I'm not talking about a complete rewrite of a system from beta feed back. I'm saying that with the amount of time left, I don't expect anything more complicated than a spelling error to get changed.
I'm under the impression they're releasing the beta as a preview and not for testing.
-
Ha, I’m usually given a week to make changes on books I’m the (assistant) developer on. Four months is forever. It’s a book, not a video game. The part that takes the most time is actually getting people to give feedback (and giving them enough time to actually play with it). The changes themselves don’t take that long.
-
I'm under the impression they're releasing the beta as a preview and not for testing.
In the second AMA CGL specifically stated, they want our input for the Beta.
-
During the last AMA, Randall said many times that the Beta is a true Beta. They want and expect feedback so that they can make changes and fix as many bugs, if/when necessary.
-
Beta testing won't change the product into something it's not. If there's a mechanic that isn't working, or something is missing, or something isn't stated clearly, those can all be fixed.
It won't change an action RPG into a turn-based RPG.
But lots of things can change in beta.
You'd be surprised how often that has happened, at least in the video game front. A lot of mechanics will get completely rewritten or even removed if they are proving to be a hindrance to the desired flow of the game. Those changes can affect the character of a game. Admittedly, it is easier to patch software than it is to patch a printed book these days, though.
-
is there a summery of the last AMA anywhere?
-
is there a summery of the last AMA anywhere?
I don't think so. But you can still watch it if you want.
-
I don't think so. But you can still watch it if you want.
They stated that they would post the answers after they had time to organizes them and try to answer question that they missed from the comments.
-
Is there any word on when or how Kickstarter backers will get access to the beta?
-
Is there any word on when or how Kickstarter backers will get access to the beta?
a couple weeks, or september at the latest, is what was said in the AMA.
-
The real question is, have you ever played Monopoly without any house rules(like collecting cash in the free parking spot)? It's those rules that make the game so awful. Everyone always blows off the bidding rules too, and those can cut the game time in half.
I do wonder who it's going to appeal to. Anarchy made sense in theory since there's people out there that love the shadowrun world, but felt 5th ed was way too over complicated. In my opinion it went way too far, but it still made sense. For battletech though, I'm not so sure. Isn't battletech's real draw its mechs, and not it's potential for roleplaying?
Here's a thought, what if instead of being designed to integrate easily into Battletech, Destiny is designed to integrate with Alpha Strike?
I was about to mention this I have never seen anybody ever play Monopoly by the actual rules (how many people have money given on free parking?) and I bet that is true for many people here. It actually makes a good cautionary tale for anyone talking modifying a game without any concept of the consequences of the changes. In Monopoly's case almost every common houserule (that many people think are actual rules) makes the game slower and take longer (bringing up the previous example giving money on free parking increases player money thus keeping them in the game longer while also not forcing auto bidding causes properties to sit longer both of these extend the game).
At least so far in Battletech everything I see at least looks like it speeds up the game rather than slowing it down.
-
Is there any word on when or how Kickstarter backers will get access to the beta?
I believe they'll post a pdf to the dropbox.
-
a couple weeks, or september at the latest, is what was said in the AMA.
I'm still editing the thing, layout is working on the chapters that I've finished and were approved by the dev. It'll be a couple weeks yet.
-
I'm still editing the thing, layout is working on the chapters that I've finished and were approved by the dev. It'll be a couple weeks yet.
I have a group of four players waiting for the Beta to drop so we can start up a game of Destiny/Total Warfare. We are all very excited.
-
Did Brent happen to mention anything about AToW continuing in parallel? ???
I don't think it came up, but it didn't sound like he was thinking of it as a replacement.
An RPG for people who have never played an RPG before was the basic pitch, which sounds like it would have it's own niche snip
Based on this statement (and nothing else) it sounds like MW:D has the same relationship to ATOW that the BT:Beginner's Box has to BattleMech Manual or Total Warfare. It's a simplified, streamlined version of the rules to hook new addicts gain new players. Then once they're familiar with the rules for movement, combat, etc. they can add more options from the other products.
As for tabletop integration (which I agree would be a great idea) didn't FASA do something like that with the Renegade Legion series? Maybe I'm mistaken.
-
I don't see, where this analogy of MW:D being the Beginner Box to AToW could hold up. MW:D is a separate rule system, called the Cue System, and not a dumbed down version of AToW. Also, we can expect future products for MW:D, while the Beginner Box is a stand alone box. There won't be a Clan Invasion versions of it or something like that.
MW:D will in fact be a separate product line and it will speak to a very different audience than AToW. If an analogy needs to be drawn, MW:D will be to role-paying gamers what Alpha Strike is for miniature gamers.
-
As someone who got tired of having to pull up spreadsheets, and having to write down numbers on scratch paper, to figure out modifiers: I'm all for trying out streamlined, narrative based systems. Let's get the beta going, already :D.
Most of the recent systems I've invested in have been more on the narrative end as is. Why not one more?
-
Based on this statement (and nothing else) it sounds like MW:D has the same relationship to ATOW that the BT:Beginner's Box has to BattleMech Manual or Total Warfare.
Not correct. They're separate rules systems. The analogy is Shadowrun to SR Anarchy.
-
I’m guessing that it’s to late to back/get the pdf
-
They just opened the pledge manager for people that missed the KS to make a pledge. I think that means you would get it, but I’m not certain.
-
So has the beta been released yet? I backed the Kickstarter in the run-up to $2 million. I have a group of mostly novices who are interested.
-
So has the beta been released yet? I backed the Kickstarter in the run-up to $2 million. I have a group of mostly novices who are interested.
No
-
So has the beta been released yet? I backed the Kickstarter in the run-up to $2 million. I have a group of mostly novices who are interested.
No
Its getting kind of tight to the deadline on this one.
CGL needs to watch out this doesn't become their first slip in the Kickstarter.
I understand that they underestimated the time needed for the Pins, Shirts, Etc.
But not being able to hit this will send a bad sign for the rest of this or any future Kickstarter(s).
-
I don't remember the beta being a stretch goal though. Thought it was just something they tossed in for free.
-
I don't remember the beta being a stretch goal though. Thought it was just something they tossed in for free.
It's not about it being a stretch goal.
It's about their ability to meet dates that they set for it.
If they can't meet the goal they set here how are we to believe they can get any item in the KS out on time.
They are already tell us on the Kickstarter updates how much more time then expected the Pins, Shirts, Etc. are taking.
They said that the MW:D beta would be out by the end of August or bleeding into September.
I want this Kickstarter to be successful and more Kickstarters in the future, but if this starts to stretch and they start missing dates this could all fall apart.
If they can't make this date then how are we supposed to believe they will make March 2020?
-
The only thing guaranteed by the KS was the book itself. The beta was offered as a potential October release but they’ve obviously withheld it for one reason or another
-
The only thing guaranteed by the KS was the book itself. The beta was offered as a potential October release but they’ve obviously withheld it for one reason or another
Where did you get that?
Watch the AMA 2 or follow the information on the KS page.
They are still saying the Beta will be this month.
-
They had originally said maybe August. They still plan to release the beta but it obviously didn’t happen last month
-
They had originally said maybe August. They still plan to release the beta but it obviously didn’t happen last month
The timeline of last week in August Bleeding into September was directly from them during the AMA 2, so I have no idea where you got October.
-
Mmm me either. Definitely meant to type August. Up with child half the night brain™️ Has subtle but often disastrous effects
-
Mmm me either. Definitely meant to type August. Up with child half the night brain™️ Has subtle but often disastrous effects
Heh... it doesn't get easier with age, only different. For example, when they're 16, you'll be up all night wondering when (if) they're coming home with your car...
As far as the "promised" date, I'm less inclined to put stock into an AMA (or any other "live" answer) than written updates, and looking back through my e-mail archive, the only "date" I see is from 09 August:
We’ll deliver that to you in the near future, along with details surrounding that playtest.
The older I get, the longer "near future" implies to me. At this point, anything under a year meets that criterion.
-
The sooner they fall behind, the more time they have to catch up.
-
Nothing is being intentionally withheld, let's put a cork in that right now, Sartris.
I completed my edit of the book last week. BUT, because this was being pushed through as a beta to meet the timeline stated in all the forums you all have quoted, I was feeding the book into layout a chapter at a time. So layout is well along.
Over the last few weeks, management has been checking in with and applying pressure to the production team to get this ready for a beta release as soon as possible, with the timeline they previously stated well in mind.
I don't have an exact timeframe for when the beta will be delivered. But it has not been forgotten about, and "soon" will not be months from now.
-
Nothing is being intentionally withheld, let's put a cork in that right now, Sartris.
Not my intended implication
You wanted to have it out potentially last month and didn’t meet that “deadline” [window is probably better than deadline as one was never really set] for reasons (primarily that it wasn’t ready I imagine).
The only conspiracies I believe in are the ones in which I participate
-
Well, it has always been communicated clearly that MW:D could slip into September for its beta release to backers. We just now entered the second half of that month. So, no hurries, there are still two weeks left. And we all know how this goes: Hugely succesful projects are harder to estimate concerning their time ressources than projects that aim lower. So schedules need to be adjusted.
I take this delay as a commitment to the core products of the Clan Invasion Kickstarter, which are miniatures. And I think, nothing will support BattleTech more than getting those out on time.
-
yeah I’m not concerned. Frankly any output by the end of the year in the face of the mammoth preparations required for the Kickstarter is impressive. Annoyingly, my last two posts in the thread only exist because I was scolded for implying something I wasn’t attempting to imply in the first place.
If I wanted to start a whisper campaign about some conspiratorial product withholding, I wouldn’t kick it off with a clumsily worded accusation written in the grogginess if sleep deprivation :P
-
Nothing is being intentionally withheld, let's put a cork in that right now, Sartris.
I completed my edit of the book last week. BUT, because this was being pushed through as a beta to meet the timeline stated in all the forums you all have quoted, I was feeding the book into layout a chapter at a time. So layout is well along.
Over the last few weeks, management has been checking in with and applying pressure to the production team to get this ready for a beta release as soon as possible, with the timeline they previously stated well in mind.
I don't have an exact timeframe for when the beta will be delivered. But it has not been forgotten about, and "soon" will not be months from now.
It sounds like instead of the "plain word document" type of beta that I remember originally being mentioned, we'll be getting a "properly laid out, almost ready for printing" kind of beta? That's a good reason for a delay IMO.
-
Yes, the "Beta" will be a fully edited, dev-reviewed, laid-out file for review.
I anticipate the next question will be "so how much can our input actually change, if it's that far along." The simple answer is, we won't know until we see what your input is. Any other answer, I'd just be speculating.
Speaking only for myself, but as the editor of the book: I think it will depend in part on how thoughtful and detail-oriented the edits and feedback are. If someone says, "these rules suck, trash them and give me MW 2nd Edition"...yeah, we're not going to do that. But feedback provided in good faith will be considered, at the very least.
Phil, Dak, and our whole team worked fast but hard to make MW:D a polished product. Phil, especially, spent a lot of time on it, and has thought through every element of the system - nothing was done haphazardly. So I'm expecting that most feedback or edits will be specific and actionable.
-
This is what I always assumed, since it's a beta.
-
Yes, the "Beta" will be a fully edited, dev-reviewed, laid-out file for review.
This is, what I had in mind.
Can you already estimate our time to review it? Will it be weeks or months? I'm planning a one-shot adventure for a selected group of players. But of course, reading the book and running an adventure would need more time than just reading it; including more time to write a dedicated feedback after the one-shot.
If that's even what you would want from us?
-
This is, what I had in mind.
Can you already estimate our time to review it? Will it be weeks or months? I'm planning a one-shot adventure for a selected group of players. But of course, reading the book and running an adventure would need more time than just reading it; including more time to write a dedicated feedback after the one-shot.
If that's even what you would want from us?
I'm asking the same question. I have 4-5 other people who are interested in a small recurring campaign, and I'd like to start scheduling sessions.
As far as I've been able to glean, if it's similar to Shadowrun Anarchy, won't it be running on the Cue system?
-
Can you already estimate our time to review it? Will it be weeks or months?
I don't have an exact answer, unfortunately. I'd be guessing. But, I'll ask up the chain.
If that's even what you would want from us?
Sure. More playtesting can't hurt. Just bear in mind my advice above.
As far as I've been able to glean, if it's similar to Shadowrun Anarchy, won't it be running on the Cue system?
It is Cue-based, yes. With the caveat that it's not a direct port by any means - we didn't just find/replace SR for BT and Street Sam for MechWarrior, slap a logo on it, and call it done. While the engine is Cue, there's plenty of wrinkles and additions included to make it feel like part of the BT universe.
-
I'll be interested to see what those wrinkles and additions are... and I have to add, I'm pretty skeptical anything based on the Cue system can feel like it's part of the BT universe to me...
-
May issues with Shadowrun Anarchy has always been its limitations oversimplification.
The limit on 6 skills.
limit on traits/advantages.
It's reduction of armor to a +1 per XP expenditure.
Entry level pack character creation.
Turning everything into a add-on pack (Magic, Cyber-ware, Etc.)
And the issues with the Cue-system in general has been the overpowering ability of the player(s) to derail the game to amuses themselves.
Played with to many out-for-themselves players for this to work.
-
Pretty solid Destiny preview in today's Kickstarter Update.
-
Pretty solid Destiny preview in today's Kickstarter Update.
Looks promising, see its using some form of the path life system, and the character has more then 6 skills, but still not enough info to elevate my issues with Shadowrun Anarchy.
Just to be clear not see anything I out-and-out hate either.
-
The "simplified" 'mech sheet at the end will probably raise some hackles.
-
I must say, I was a bit surprised by that and I'm not exactly a fan of yet another variant. After regular BT, the intro-box simplified sheets, Quick Strike and Alpha Strike, I think we already had enough variants.
-
I'm sold on Destiny from the preview alone.
EXTREMELY interested in seeing more.
-
The timing cannot be better as I'll soon be wrapping up my TOTAL CHAOS Campaign, and this could be a fun new direction to go in.
-
I must say, I was a bit surprised by that and I'm not exactly a fan of yet another variant. After regular BT, the intro-box simplified sheets, Quick Strike and Alpha Strike, I think we already had enough variants.
BattleTech as a tabletop game is great. BattleTech as a combat system for a role-playing game is terrible. Similar issues to D&D 4th edition. The combat takes so long that, regardless of how good it is, it's a time hog and there's nothing left for actually role-playing.
If the tabletop is your primary interest, and you just want to add some role-playing, there's the tabletop integration chapter.
-
I must say, I was a bit surprised by that and I'm not exactly a fan of yet another variant. After regular BT, the intro-box simplified sheets, Quick Strike and Alpha Strike, I think we already had enough variants.
I think you might be looking at the simplified sheet as a BattleTech player first. The simplified Mech sheet that was previewed is for the MW:Destiny player who might need to engage Mech-scale play, and need to track damage.
Put another way: MW: Destiny includes rules for handling Mech-Scale Combat fully within the MWD rules - no jumping to Total Warfare or Alpha Strike needed. That's what the simplified sheet is for.
-
This is something a few friends of mine will be very interested in as a rule lawyer killed any interest they had in TW
-
The group I play with is normally 7 to 8 people and when you are working out mech combat using TW or AS they lose focus and then lose interest. We have had 2 different campaigns shut down because the mech combat slowed the story down. I am hoping with this new system we can get the feel and favor of BT but have more time to RP and not worry about dragging the game down!
Looks promising so far!
-
@Cubby and nckestrel
I get that, but why add a system that looks a lot like a simplified BT record sheet to such a rules light system. Why not go full Alpha Strike? I'm not a fan of AS, but this way one could have saved a third game system; a fifth, if we count Quick Strike and Intro Box record sheets.
-
@Cubby and nckestrel
I get that, but why add a system that looks a lot like a simplified BT record sheet to such a rules light system. Why not go full Alpha Strike? I'm not a fan of AS, but this way one could have saved a third game system; a fifth, if we count Quick Strike and Intro Box record sheets.
Note this is my opinion, I had nothing to do with MW: Destiny.
1. Alpha Strike is also too long. Both (AS and BT) are tabletop combat games where the whole session is meant to be combat. They aren't intended to be part of something larger. You want to tack on 10% role-play to them, sure. If you want an actual role-playing game, you don't have time to do AS (or BT) as part of a session. They demand all/the majority of it.
2. Alpha Strike in particular is fast and deadly. No one unit can survive any kind of attention. It doesn't take well to individual heroes. They will die.
But if that's not what you want, then don't use it. They are fully aware that many players want an add-on to the tabletop, they've dedicated a whole chapter to tabletop integration. You don't need to be convinced, nobody is trying to convince you. Play how you want to play.
Just don't act like you're the only way to play. I've ignored AToW it's entire existence. Has nothing to do with it being good or bad, it's not something I've been interested in. That's on me and I'm good with my choice. You don't want another combat system, don't use it. Don't feel like any of us are trying to tell you that you have to. I'm specifically saying you have my express permission to ignore anything you are not interested in.
-
Those pages have a lot of great content, and I like the fact that you get so much space for Cues. I've messed around with FATE and FATE ACCELERATED EDITION, and felt like they ended up producing more one-dimensional characters, where this is going to make you work to flesh out a character as a whole person.
Hopefully the 'Mech combat section will be compatible with vehicles, infantry, battle armor, and aerospace (Small Craft and below) units. I'm imaging PCs facing off against a bad guy in a Vulcan or Firestarter while on foot as basically an apocalypse-level boss. Ripping some elements from the movie Fury except with a Demolisher crewed by the PCs might be fun as well.
With my group, I'll probably run everything but the last climactic battle on the MWD combat framework, and use it as an opportunity to show them how much fun and deep TW can be.
-
. . .
2. Alpha Strike in particular is fast and deadly. No one unit can survive any kind of attention. It doesn't take well to individual heroes. They will die.
. . .
Yeah, AS IMO might be the worst resolution since its designed for larger units and how would it really introduce such RP generating events like . . . "OMG, I can only find the Wrong medium laser to replace the one that got trashed in my last fight. Maybe that black market arms dealer my Galatea contact told me about for this contract can get one . . . then again, my contact was a bit miffed I stiffed him on the headhunter's fee so maybe I shouldn't go meet that arms dealer in a dark alley outside a notorious biker gang dive . . . "
-
I'm using the RPG has an excuse to get people to play battletech so this won't be taking the place of my current campaign. ;)
My interest is peaked though. Is it like Anarchy where there's no initiative and all gear is covered through XP instead of cash? Those were a couple of my bigger issues with it.
-
*snip*
I've ignored AToW it's entire existence.
*snip*
This makes me sad. I've ignored Alpha Strike its entire existence, and this means we'll probably never see eye to eye. The way you conduct yourself around here otherwise places you high on my list of someone I'd like to game with.
-
I'm using the RPG has an excuse to get people to play battletech so this won't be taking the place of my current campaign. ;)
My interest is peaked though. Is it like Anarchy where there's no initiative and all gear is covered through XP instead of cash? Those were a couple of my bigger issues with it.
From just the few page preview that we have been giving on the KS page, I can say that the Character creation and rules seem to show some major differences (More then 6 skills, 2D6 mechanics to match BT, no apparent equivalent to shadow amps).
So it is hard to take a guess as to the answer to this question at this time
-
Note this is my opinion, I had nothing to do with MW: Destiny.
1. Alpha Strike is also too long. Both (AS and BT) are tabletop combat games where the whole session is meant to be combat. They aren't intended to be part of something larger. You want to tack on 10% role-play to them, sure. If you want an actual role-playing game, you don't have time to do AS (or BT) as part of a session. They demand all/the majority of it.
2. Alpha Strike in particular is fast and deadly. No one unit can survive any kind of attention. It doesn't take well to individual heroes. They will die.
But if that's not what you want, then don't use it. They are fully aware that many players want an add-on to the tabletop, they've dedicated a whole chapter to tabletop integration. You don't need to be convinced, nobody is trying to convince you. Play how you want to play.
Just don't act like you're the only way to play. I've ignored AToW it's entire existence. Has nothing to do with it being good or bad, it's not something I've been interested in. That's on me and I'm good with my choice. You don't want another combat system, don't use it. Don't feel like any of us are trying to tell you that you have to. I'm specifically saying you have my express permission to ignore anything you are not interested in.
I have to say it is refreshing to see a writer (even freelance) from any company able to separate the job from their opinion, and not just walk the party line.
:thumbsup:
-
This makes me sad. I've ignored Alpha Strike its entire existence, and this means we'll probably never see eye to eye. The way you conduct yourself around here otherwise places you high on my list of someone I'd like to game with.
If we’re ever in the same area with time on our hands, we can always grab a drink and share war stories. We don’t have to mention what system we used to fight them.
-
Sold, good sir! I'm in the DC area... Paul, TinyOzora, or Jester006 know where to find me! :thumbsup:
-
I have to say it is refreshing to see a writer (even freelance) from any company able to separate the job from their opinion, and not just walk the party line.
:thumbsup:
Probably because I’ve been so often on the Alpha a strike side, where we try to convince the doomsayers registry that we’re not out to destroy (classic) BattleTech.
It’s fine you don’t want to play Alpha Strike. We’re not trying to replace classic BattleTech. And even though AS couldn’t be where it is without existing BattleTech players, the target is even more so (or we’d like it to be) outside the current BT player base.
I do think MW:Destiny could be a great asset for tabletop BattleTech to add role-playing in (with the tabletop integration). But I think it’s also aiming at a player base that might not be interested in tabletop integration, and it needs a complimentary lite mech combat system to go with that. Or even those that might want to mix it up (some combat lite and some full tabletop).
-
Probably because I’ve been so often on the Alpha a strike side, where we try to convince the doomsayers registry that we’re not out to destroy (classic) BattleTech.
It’s fine you don’t want to play Alpha Strike. We’re not trying to replace classic BattleTech. And even though AS couldn’t be where it is without existing BattleTech players, the target is even more so (or we’d like it to be) outside the current BT player base.
I do think MW:Destiny could be a great asset for tabletop BattleTech to add role-playing in (with the tabletop integration). But I think it’s also aiming at a player base that might not be interested in tabletop integration, and it needs a complimentary lite mech combat system to go with that. Or even those that might want to mix it up (some combat lite and some full tabletop).
I'm still not all that convinced that MW:Destiny will be the gateway that CGL thinks.
While it will most likely bring in new players to BTU RPGs, I don't think they will get the crossover between game they seem to be expecting.
I see it more as akin to the Alpha Strike and Total War subsets in the community, so we will wind-up with a AToW and MW:Destiny subsets.
An while I would say that's OK normally, when it comes to resent BTU RPGs the track record for support is not the best and adding a second separately supported game could put a strain on an already strained secondary line.
-
@Cubby and nckestrel
I get that, but why add a system that looks a lot like a simplified BT record sheet to such a rules light system. Why not go full Alpha Strike? I'm not a fan of AS, but this way one could have saved a third game system; a fifth, if we count Quick Strike and Intro Box record sheets.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but Destiny won't be the first time Battletech has had an extra lite RPG 'Mech combat system.
The MechWarrior's Guide to Solaris VII for the 3rd Edition RPG had a set of rules for the same purpose.
-
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but Destiny won't be the first time Battletech has had an extra lite RPG 'Mech combat system.
The MechWarrior's Guide to Solaris VII for the 3rd Edition RPG had a set of rules for the same purpose.
Have the book and would not truly call it a lite Mech combat system.
It was more like, add up a set of numbers and roll off to see who wins.
The other system in the book was a hybrid and utterly unplayable mix of MW 3rd ed and battletech.
Another system that people seem to forget was the mech dueling system from the FASA Solaris VII boxset.
-
Another system that people seem to forget was the mech dueling system from the FASA Solaris VII boxset.
From what I have read, for good reason.
-
Have the book and would not truly call it a lite Mech combat system.
It was more like, add up a set of numbers and roll off to see who wins.
The other system in the book was a hybrid and utterly unplayable mix of MW 3rd ed and battletech.
Another system that people seem to forget was the mech dueling system from the FASA Solaris VII boxset.
Yeah, it doesn't look like it was ever that successful or popular.
-
I wonder how many games of it were actually played. It was one of the last FASA books and is really rare now (compared with the mid 90s stuff that’s often out there)
-
I wonder how many games of it were actually played. It was one of the last FASA books and is really rare now (compared with the mid 90s stuff that’s often out there)
I'm guessing not many, given it hasn't been brought up by people much in the context of Destiny. While the book isn't the most impossible thing to get, it is certainly fairly obscure, perhaps partly because the 3rd Edition itself doesn't seem to have that many fans to begin with.
-
Note this is my opinion, I had nothing to do with MW: Destiny.
1. Alpha Strike is also too long.
[...]
2. Alpha Strike in particular is fast and deadly. No one unit can survive any kind of attention. It doesn't take well to individual heroes. They will die.
Thanks for your input. That is good to know. My experience with AS is limited to some reading. :)
-
The MechWarrior's Guide to Solaris VII for the 3rd Edition RPG had a set of rules for the same purpose.
Thanks, I read about that, too. I must confess, I skipped everything between MW2 and MW:D, precisely because I found it to be too clunky. I'm eagerly awaiting MW:D, explicitly because of the possibilities created by both: an integration of full BT and a light rule set. I'm just fearful that every new combat system will be too detailed and too clunky or crunchy for a narrative approach. Of course any 'Mech centered combat needs some crunch, unless one resolves it purely by fancy dice like the Star Wars RPGs (and even that has some crunch).
-
I think at the end of the day, CGL has to do something or risk giving up market share. Tabletop and pen-and-paper RPG games have seen a huge explosion in the past few years (possibly because we millienials are cheap/don't have money). There's two bars in my city that routinely have DnD nights, one of which has been around for five years in a part of town where competition in the bar/restaurant industry is brutal. It's basically always packed on those nights as well.
MW3 was a clunky mess. I loved the randomness of the dice-roll life paths, as you had to quickly pivot your character from being a high-society academy MechWarrior to a cavalry trooper who's had a serious run of bad luck. AToW is a bit better, and cleans up combat, but is still a lot to ask of new players who will, as I've seen, feel somewhat overwhelmed with the depth and breadth of the universe and timeline, getting lost on that instead of focusing on playing. TW, AS, et al, are still niche games to some extent- you're not roleplaying in them, and they take up some serious time and resources. A rules-lite system where people can get to know the universe in an afternoon is a perfect bridge into the tabletop. Doing otherwise is CGL leaving money on the table.
-
@Cubby and nckestrel
I get that, but why add a system that looks a lot like a simplified BT record sheet to such a rules light system. Why not go full Alpha Strike?
A couple reasons.
First, you've gotta stop viewing this as a wargamer-first. You can't assume that an RPG group is willing to jump over to a miniatures wargame to resolve Mech-Scale situations. AS is an entirely different experience from an RPG, and not everyone wants to play all the things. The Mech-Scale Combat rules allow RPG groups to play out Mech-Scale situations fully within the MW:D rules. AS could not just be copied and pasted in to an RPG rules set.
Second, telling an RPG group that encounters a Mech-Scale situation to "go play a game of AS now" is also telling them "go acquire all the AS rules, terrain, a game table, miniatures, oh and fully learn the AS system too." WAY too much of an investment to ask, both financial and intellectual. MW:D is supposed to be rules-lite. Bolting on an entire, complete set of miniature wargame rules would utterly destroy that.
Third, the Mech-Scale Combat rules are one chapter within the overall MW:D rules. That's starting to get lost here. The MSC rules are not some separate system that was inserted into the MW:D book. They are part of the MW:D system. They have to be, because they need to integrate with the Personal Combat-level rules, to cover what happens when someone's Mech fires on an unarmored NPC on foot. (There are rules to cover that, and it ain't pretty.)
FWIW, very early in development Phil did look at whether the Alpha Strike system could be ported into MW:D in some fashion and it just couldn't. It's not like we didn't think of it, it just didn't fit.
Hopefully the 'Mech combat section will be compatible with vehicles, infantry, battle armor, and aerospace (Small Craft and below) units.
All of the above.
Is it like Anarchy where there's no initiative and all gear is covered through XP instead of cash?
Yes to both.
-
Wow that Mechwarrior Destiny preview looks very promising!
-
I think at the end of the day, CGL has to do something or risk giving up market share. Tabletop and pen-and-paper RPG games have seen a huge explosion in the past few years (possibly because we millienials are cheap/don't have money). There's two bars in my city that routinely have DnD nights, one of which has been around for five years in a part of town where competition in the bar/restaurant industry is brutal. It's basically always packed on those nights as well.
MW3 was a clunky mess. I loved the randomness of the dice-roll life paths, as you had to quickly pivot your character from being a high-society academy MechWarrior to a cavalry trooper who's had a serious run of bad luck. AToW is a bit better, and cleans up combat, but is still a lot to ask of new players who will, as I've seen, feel somewhat overwhelmed with the depth and breadth of the universe and timeline, getting lost on that instead of focusing on playing. TW, AS, et al, are still niche games to some extent- you're not roleplaying in them, and they take up some serious time and resources. A rules-lite system where people can get to know the universe in an afternoon is a perfect bridge into the tabletop. Doing otherwise is CGL leaving money on the table.
Yeah, and this is the thing - the ideas that are putting people here off of Destiny? They're really common in modern RPGs. Savage Worlds is the hotness in the Irish con scene, and the last time I played a game of it we got plot tokens for good roleplaying that we could later use to pull off incredible feats, save our asses, and so on. It's not much different than spending XP to say, "wait, I have this thing that can save the day!". Destiny, esepcially in the GM-free mode is going to be about mutual enjoyable storytelling, not simulating the exploits of a Mercenary unit or a DEST squad.
-
A couple reasons.
First, you've gotta stop viewing this as a wargamer-first. You can't assume that an RPG group is willing to jump over to a miniatures wargame to resolve Mech-Scale situations. AS is an entirely different experience from an RPG, and not everyone wants to play all the things. The Mech-Scale Combat rules allow RPG groups to play out Mech-Scale situations fully within the MW:D rules. AS could not just be copied and pasted in to an RPG rules set.
While I totally agree with you here, you also have to remember that the Battletech game community at it's core are wargamers. And while it would be nice to bring in new blood to the universe, The majority of players these new players are going to meet are going to be wargamers and crunch RPG players. While I have nothing against narrative/lite rules players (just playing with the rules myself), I don't see them changing their playstyle to crossover into the greater Battletech community. So in the end further dividing CGL's resources to support another subset of the community. And while I say bring them in, I just don't want to see Any of these subset within the community get the shaft because of lack of resources to go around.
Second, telling an RPG group that encounters a Mech-Scale situation to "go play a game of AS now" is also telling them "go acquire all the AS rules, terrain, a game table, miniatures, oh and fully learn the AS system too." WAY too much of an investment to ask, both financial and intellectual. MW:D is supposed to be rules-lite. Bolting on an entire, complete set of miniature wargame rules would utterly destroy that.
Some of the same issues above, if you are not expecting the players of this game to support the larger Battletech product line then it has to be asked why divert resources to it with the expatiation that you will get a few new players for this product only?
Third, the Mech-Scale Combat rules are one chapter within the overall MW:D rules. That's starting to get lost here. The MSC rules are not some separate system that was inserted into the MW:D book. They are part of the MW:D system. They have to be, because they need to integrate with the Personal Combat-level rules, to cover what happens when someone's Mech fires on an unarmored NPC on foot. (There are rules to cover that, and it ain't pretty.)
Not going to argue here, as I totally agree that most of the RPGs needed some system to stop bogging down the RPG sessions.
FWIW, very early in development Phil did look at whether the Alpha Strike system could be ported into MW:D in some fashion and it just couldn't. It's not like we didn't think of it, it just didn't fit.
Not to surprising. Tactical board games take a lot of attention to detail to pull off.
All of the above.
Great to here.
Yes to both.
On this one I have to ask
(no initiative)
1. Will there be an optional rule to add it?
(all gear is covered through XP instead of cash)
1. Is this just in character creation or throughout the game?
2. Will gear have C-Bill cost if you want to ignore this?
3. Will armor have stat or is it just going to be a spend 3XP or what ever, get +1 armor system.
-
Some of the same issues above, if you are not expecting the players of this game to support the larger Battletech product line then it has to be asked why divert resources to it with the expatiation that you will get a few new players for this product only?
Because most of what CGL sells for BT is universe building materials- DTF spine sourcebooks (ER3052, Shattered Fortress), PDF unit summaries (Spotlight On), PDF world building (TtS), event sourcebooks (Turning Points), fiction-novels/anthologies, and now swag through the CGL store like the T-shirts. They do not care if I buy Touring the Stars Butte Hold for a TW, AS or AToW game . . . as long as I am buying that PDF.
-
Because most of what CGL sells for BT is universe building materials- DTF spine sourcebooks (ER3052, Shattered Fortress), PDF unit summaries (Spotlight On), PDF world building (TtS), event sourcebooks (Turning Points), fiction-novels/anthologies, and now swag through the CGL store like the T-shirts. They do not care if I buy Touring the Stars Butte Hold for a TW, AS or AToW game . . . as long as I am buying that PDF.
And most of the products you listed are heavily (rule section in sorucebooks) or entirety (Turning points, campaign books) tied to the TW system with some support for other systems included (1 or 2 pages) Adding another system reduces the overall page count available in the books and can lead to things having to be left out (Stories, Stats, Info for other games, Etc.).
The point I was making was, that if they are going into this with the attempt to bring in more players to the community and think it will work I'm fine with that.
But if they are just trying to get a few more customers for as long as they can keep them then I'm not, and the resources should be spent on other projects that need them (IllClan)
This is what I mean by stretching resources.
-
Most of those books are lore, and anything put out for AToW inclusion in them would probably work for Destiny. Since it would be supported like AToW, IMO, then I am not sure its really that much of a division of the production.
-
Most of those books are lore, and anything put out for AToW inclusion in them would probably work for Destiny. Since it would be supported like AToW, IMO, then I am not sure its really that much of a division of the production.
You have not played Shadowrun 5th vs. Shadowrun Anarchy then.
And actuality most of the turning point and unit books (at lest currently) are mostly TW and chaos scenarios with a little lore, not enough to make them worth wiled to a non wargamer.
And in most of the sourcebooks the lore revolves around overarching stories/battles/armies/and force dispositions, not all that useful to RPGers most of the time who tend to avoid the Mega-plot.
-
You have not played Shadowrun 5th vs. Shadowrun Anarchy then.
And actuality most of the turning point and unit books (at lest currently) are mostly TW and chaos scenarios with a little lore, not enough to make them worth wiled to a non wargamer.
And in most of the sourcebooks the lore revolves around overarching stories/battles/armies/and force dispositions, not all that useful to RPGers most of the time who tend to avoid the Mega-plot.
Not to jump into the middle of a conversation, but I don't know if I understand how you're defining "lore" in this case.
I would argue that, especially with the TTS books where we get a deep dive of obscure planets, most Battletech sourcebooks are nothing but lore. Heck, even the old field manuals were mostly just fluff for everyone's order of battle. Sure, the dedicated rules sections were generally not MW/AToW-friendly, but you can certainly use the rest of the material to add color and detail to an RPG campaign.
-
Not to jump into the middle of a conversation, but I don't know if I understand how you're defining "lore" in this case.
I would argue that, especially with the TTS books where we get a deep dive of obscure planets, most Battletech sourcebooks are nothing but lore. Heck, even the old field manuals were mostly just fluff for everyone's order of battle. Sure, the dedicated rules sections were generally not MW/AToW-friendly, but you can certainly use the rest of the material to add color and detail to an RPG campaign.
While I agree that some older books where lore heavy The old house book series for example, a lot of what some people are calling lore in the newer books revolve around house structure, military force OOBs and strengths, and the stories tend to be mostly about the mega plot.
As a RPGer and wargamer I can say that a lot of this info is not all that useful to my RPG play. Especially when it involves the current timeline when I either play in the 3025 or 3050 timeline. So I buy most of these books only if they have new rules for AToW that I can uses during that time. The wargamer side of my play gets uses out of the TW rules and Chaos campaign information (new scenario paths) in the rule sections, and again if it the book is missing this information I tend to avoid it till I can get it on sale on drivethru because I'm also a collector.
Overall what I am getting at is if I did not play Battletech the boardgame and only RPGed (And was not a collector) I would not have given a lot of the books in the line a second look. I may have hunted down older books from the timeline I played in, but the new post-invasion era books would have been useless to me.
Now back to the point. As I don't want this to become like the AToW 2nd thread were we go back and forth accomplishing nothing.
I was responding to Cubby's post and will wait for his answers.
-
While I totally agree with you here, you also have to remember that the Battletech game community at it's core are wargamers. And while it would be nice to bring in new blood to the universe, The majority of players these new players are going to meet are going to be wargamers and crunch RPG players. While I have nothing against narrative/lite rules players (just playing with the rules myself), I don't see them changing their playstyle to crossover into the greater Battletech community. So in the end further dividing CGL's resources to support another subset of the community. And while I say bring them in, I just don't want to see Any of these subset within the community get the shaft because of lack of resources to go around.
Some of the same issues above, if you are not expecting the players of this game to support the larger Battletech product line then it has to be asked why divert resources to it with the expatiation that you will get a few new players for this product only?
I get where you're going here. And honestly, I agree, I think growing the line is critical and that means prioritizing products and efforts that will bring in new players. But then...I'm not management. The best answer I can give as to their thinking is that having a modern-style RPG on the shelf provides one more way to expose a different sub-set of gamers to the BattleTech brand. I think you're on the mark that most gamers interested in a mecha-flavor RPG may not jump into a tabletop miniatures game, but it's an avenue of exposure that BT has always had.
As far as the opportunity cost (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opportunitycost.asp) in producing this - hard to say. But considering that MW:D was included in the KS, I suppose that's evidence that it will be supported going forward.
On this one I have to ask
(no initiative)
1. Will there be an optional rule to add it?
Kind of? Players can use plot points they accrue through various methods to "jump in front" of another player to give a narration. It's a little hard to describe if you're not familiar with the Cue system - check out the Beta when it releases, then circle back to tell me what you think.
(all gear is covered through XP instead of cash)
1. Is this just in character creation or throughout the game?
2. Will gear have C-Bill cost if you want to ignore this?
3. Will armor have stat or is it just going to be a spend 3XP or what ever, get +1 armor system.
1. Throughout the game. I realize this isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. But it's part of the rules-lite intent of the system. All hail the mighty C-bill, but it's a bit inconsistent to strip down most of the rules and still make you play AccountTech for repairing your gear and buying new stuff.
2. Groups are certainly empowered to track things via C-Bills if they choose, but there is not a list of costs in the book or anything.
3. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. There are various types of personal armor, which each have a certain number of "pips" of damage they can sustain.
Before I get peppered by too many more specific questions, please know that we're in the final stages of getting the Beta together, so all those questions will be answered soon. I don't mean to put anyone off, but I don't want anyone to pre-judge the book before they take their own, fresh look at it. Phil put a lot of work into it.
-
Not to jump into the middle of a conversation, but I don't know if I understand how you're defining "lore" in this case.
I would argue that, especially with the TTS books where we get a deep dive of obscure planets, most Battletech sourcebooks are nothing but lore. Heck, even the old field manuals were mostly just fluff for everyone's order of battle. Sure, the dedicated rules sections were generally not MW/AToW-friendly, but you can certainly use the rest of the material to add color and detail to an RPG campaign.
Yeah, the TtS I have were great for that . . . Manassas, Nosiel, Butte Hold, and others are great for people looking for story and places/ways to set their stories. In fact, while they do have TW/AS set up, they are built for RP heavy versions of those games IMO. Manassas TtS is in fact a great starting point IMO for any RP group because of the Run and set for very small groups that are not mechwarrior centric- your techs are in some ways more important. House Arano might be one of the 'bigger' RP friendly books in a while, but as mentioned that would get back to the nature of what its modeled after. PDF exclusive books might actually be better for RP'ers since they involve more niche areas they can build a story out of- even the Spotlights, Marik Protectors come to mind from last year's WWE. Little blurbs about individual pilots, particularly mentioning one that is not trusted . . . who might be looking to make his own escape from his 'rescuers' would be a interesting story springboard.
I will agree the spine books might be less interesting for RP groups, but they still provide openings for creative RP groups.
-
I get where you're going here. And honestly, I agree, I think growing the line is critical and that means prioritizing products and efforts that will bring in new players. But then...I'm not management. The best answer I can give as to their thinking is that having a modern-style RPG on the shelf provides one more way to expose a different sub-set of gamers to the BattleTech brand. I think you're on the mark that most gamers interested in a mecha-flavor RPG may not jump into a tabletop miniatures game, but it's an avenue of exposure that BT has always had.
As far as the opportunity cost (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opportunitycost.asp) in producing this - hard to say. But considering that MW:D was included in the KS, I suppose that's evidence that it will be supported going forward.
Kind of? Players can use plot points they accrue through various methods to "jump in front" of another player to give a narration. It's a little hard to describe if you're not familiar with the Cue system - check out the Beta when it releases, then circle back to tell me what you think.
1. Throughout the game. I realize this isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. But it's part of the rules-lite intent of the system. All hail the mighty C-bill, but it's a bit inconsistent to strip down most of the rules and still make you play AccountTech for repairing your gear and buying new stuff.
2. Groups are certainly empowered to track things via C-Bills if they choose, but there is not a list of costs in the book or anything.
3. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. There are various types of personal armor, which each have a certain number of "pips" of damage they can sustain.
Before I get peppered by too many more specific questions, please know that we're in the final stages of getting the Beta together, so all those questions will be answered soon. I don't mean to put anyone off, but I don't want anyone to pre-judge the book before they take their own, fresh look at it. Phil put a lot of work into it.
Not going to push any deeper. :thumbsup:
Mostly just trying to figure out ultimate goal here and a lot of the Con interviews/AMA info on this game seemed to lay it out as a gateway system idea to bring more players to the Battletech Boardgame, and the comment about keeping it separate kind of undermined that.
As for the Armor,
"3. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. There are various types of personal armor, which each have a certain number of "pips" of damage they can sustain."
I was referring to Shadowrun Anarchy's Armor rules, where you get armor for character points then by spending #XP/Karma during play you can increase it. "This is a simple matter of spending #Karma for each #-point improvement in Armor."
Really not a fan of this.
#=numbers removed for, you know the reason.
-
I can understand making it stand alone from the table top game. Most of my gamer friends are RPG players and they rarely ever even pull out a grid map for anything but the most complicated fights.
-
I can understand making it stand alone from the table top game. Most of my gamer friends are RPG players and they rarely ever even pull out a grid map for anything but the most complicated fights.
Pretty much this, in all honesty these days I have very little interests in actually playing Classic BattleTech, Alpha Strike seems like a great system but does not really seem to of gotten the full support of the devs.
A new modern RPG system for BT does not really need that much support from the devs because in all honesty Sarna has grown into a HUGE source of lore over being a source of rules related stuff. I want a series of pre-generated RPG Adventures to be published in support of Destiny but any GM who does not spend a considerable amount of time on Sarna is likely missing a trick for custom Adventures.
-
I can understand making it stand alone from the table top game. Most of my gamer friends are RPG players and they rarely ever even pull out a grid map for anything but the most complicated fights.
As I said, if you want to integrate the table Top into the RPG, then simply direct players to the Table Top game and provide a skill link in the skill description. Tactics for initiative, Gunnery and Piloting as normal. Computer or tech rolls to avoid shutdowns.
But otherwise, a straightforward expansion of vehicle combat rules should suffice.
-
Will the MW: Destiny rules be adaptable to Clan era or will we have to wait for the Clan sourcebook to come out?
-
Has clan era rules in it, just downloaded the beta but have not gone through it yet
-
Just looking at the table of contents, I have to say it's odd to put character creation at page 68...
-
hey guys...
on p. 158 the dragon has HEAD 3/2 pips. As even the Dire Wolf on page 228 has just 3/1 i can safely assume thats a typo/mistake?
-
Just looking at the table of contents, I have to say it's odd to put character creation at page 68...
Looks like it’s
Primer - jump in - basic gameplay - complete creation rules
Unsure if that’s a good format but that appears to be the flow
-
What was the reasoning behind flipping the battlemech locations around on the sheets? I understand that if you are actually look face-on at a 'mech, it is not a mirror. However, you have thousands of sheets with it from a mirror view. Just seems like... that is a major head trip trying to not confuse them and likely a stumbling block for new players wanting to transition from Destiny to TW or vice versa.
-
I daresay that would be a worse mistake than flipping the modifiers for skill checks like AToW did...
-
Do the chapter tabs on the page edges seem backward to anyone else? Shouldn't they start at the top and move down?
-
Agreed... those seem to be backwards too. I also keep getting "A drawing error occurred" messages from Adobe...
-
Hey guys,
How can someone acquire this particular info? Drivethru RPG? Amazon?
-
Kickstarter backers got a Dropbox link
-
Yeah, had to be a Kickstarter to get the drop.
-
Agreed... those seem to be backwards too. I also keep getting "A drawing error occurred" messages from Adobe...
The same tab format is used in Alpha Strike Commander's Edition and the BattleMech manual. I guess it makes more sense if you turn the book on its side, then they go left to right?
Dak
-
You know how you can ask a question in one place and then have somebody in another place answer that question. It happened to me just now. So, I'm editing this post that used to be a question to no longer contain that question.
-
Well, in trying out the rules so far, I can say that Destiny passes my first criterion -- relatively easy and painless character creation :thumbsup:
-
Finished my first quick read.
So far I'm not see any of the major issues I had with SR:A so good sign so far.
Going to start my thorough read tomorrow. (could sleep so doing it tonight.)
We shall see how it holds up after that.
-
So far I haven't seen anything that changes my mind about the Cue system.
It just isn't for me or what I'm looking for in a RPG game and by the time it is changed to be what I'm looking for or what I want it would not be accurate to say that it is even so much as based on the Cue system.
Now I want to be clear I'm not saying it is bad or isn't worth CGL exploring but I'm clearly not the target audience.
-
After a page by page read through I have to say I will not be beta testing this RPG.
I could not present this game to my group with a strait face.
The Bad
From what I have read, this is not a role playing, it's a high-school drama club script writing meeting.
The game flow is simplistic to say the lest.
Character creation is limited at best, mindless at worst.
The opposed skill system is so random as to make have high skills a waste. A seasoned trained doctor can fail a tonsillectomy, just because the GM rolled well.
The narrative turn system will be a rule laws/powergamers paradise. Forcing the GM to spend session after secession raining them in.
Overall the game is a players storytelling secession not a rpg.
The Good
The mech-combat damage system has promise as a optional damage system for Alpha strike/Battleforce.
It Would work well to relive the complaints about the sameness of Battlemechs in those system.
Could also be used in AToW with some modifications to give a option to avoid a TW bogging down there game.
So as I see no way this game will be playable by me or my players without over a 2/3 rewrite, so for those that like this kind of game I will not waste CGL and my time, since there is no way that CGL could even make this game playable by me without making it unplayable to those that like this type of game.
-
I just ran through the character creation section, and have to wonder why they didn't merge INT and WIL like they did BOD and STR...
-
Ok, 50 pages of sample characters and another 15 on missions is a bit much in between sections you NEED for character creation (specifically, all the traits, life modules and equipment/hardware). And having the skill list way back at page 30 is weird too. And people say AToW is badly laid out... ::)
-
just as an aside, and yes, I know how much work was done in getting this out timely...
A set of bookmarks would have been nice. Just getting into it this morning before work
-
And people say AToW is badly laid out... ::)
It should be noted that being the less odorous turd does not change its essential nature
-
True, but one would have thought that would have been a consideration when laying out the new book...
-
From going over the pdf, I would say that it is not my style of RPG. ;)
Overall my impression is that it is at the same time too restrictive and too free at the same time.
Too restrictive, in structuring the narrative part on a meta level and too free in not giving players any guideline to choose fitting choices to change the world around them.
Letting people choose on the spot what an item should do, what NPC should appear or what event should happen and then having a discussion in the moment if those choices fit, seems like an invitation to a lot of out of character player level discussions.
All in all it leaves the GM in the unenviable situation of playing referee without complete authority about the world and what can and cannot happen and no hard rule set as a reference basis.
I imagine those player huddles around the referee in soccer and actually inviting those and at the same time taking away a few hard rules from the referee. ;)
From the outside that could be entertaining too, don't know if it is helpful for a cohesive in game story narrative.
Although, in that case I'm missing rules for player conflict resolution (not char conflict), I'm thinking trial by combat perhaps?
Anyway, it may work with specific groups and at worst it will probably show faster than a more rules heavy RPG if a group likes the same style of RPG play, which is something.
For me it gave me some appreciation for more strongly defined rules as they streamline decision processes even if they bog down sometimes on the details.
-
After a page by page read through I have to say I will not be beta testing this RPG.
I could not present this game to my group with a strait face.
The Bad
From what I have read, this is not a role playing, it's a high-school drama club script writing meeting.
The game flow is simplistic to say the lest.
Character creation is limited at best, mindless at worst.
The opposed skill system is so random as to make have high skills a waste. A seasoned trained doctor can fail a tonsillectomy, just because the GM rolled well.
The narrative turn system will be a rule laws/powergamers paradise. Forcing the GM to spend session after secession raining them in.
Overall the game is a players storytelling secession not a rpg.
The Good
The mech-combat damage system has promise as a optional damage system for Alpha strike/Battleforce.
It Would work well to relive the complaints about the sameness of Battlemechs in those system.
Could also be used in AToW with some modifications to give a option to avoid a TW bogging down there game.
So as I see no way this game will be playable by me or my players without over a 2/3 rewrite, so for those that like this kind of game I will not waste CGL and my time, since there is no way that CGL could even make this game playable by me without making it unplayable to those that like this type of game.
So, first, I will note that I'm fully aware this isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, and that's fine, just like the poster above you noted. It's a very different style of RPG, and for those who don't like it, ATOW is- as the book takes extreme pains to emphasize- still there, and is still going to get supported going forward.
That said, I have to push back against a few of the things you said here, which I know is hyperbole (on the internet, forsooth!) but I don't want to go entirely unchallenged. I'm going to go from the bottom up of your bad notes and kind of dig into some of the things you don't like about it, and discuss that.
"The narrative turn system will be a rule laws/powergamers paradise. Forcing the GM to spend session after secession raining them in."
If you have a group that keeps on doing that after being politely brushed back and after reading the rules, you have a group that's not interested in this style of game. That's not a bad thing, it just means the group is after diffferent methods of fun. Broadly speaking, and reaching back into the hoary old (and oversimplified!) theory from Edwards to try to explain this, there's a few non-mutually-exclusive ways to have fun with a role playing game. Two of those are the gamist style, where the fun comes from following a rigid set of rules and beating them, and the narrativist style, where the fun comes from the storytelling. Most groups- most games- have a balance of those and other ways of having fun. A system like Destiny shifts the lever over mostly, but not entirely, to the narrativist viewpoint, because it's very up front and explicit that the game is about cooperatively telling a story.
What a lot of traditional games like the D&D family have in common is that they work with a gamist sort of fun by encouraging an adversarial relationship, in game, between the players and the GM. The GM sets up a challenge for the players to defeat within the rules, and then the players beat it. Rinse and repeat. The GM is also in sole control of the story to shape a progressive set of challenges towards a goal, and the players have to overcome each of these challenges in turn. That is a common way of doing things! But that's not necessarily what Destiny is asking a group to do. Instead of an adversarial model- which breeds powergaming and rules lawyers- Destiny and other games like it advocate for a cooperative model. The point isn't necessarily for the GM to make a fight and the players to win it. The point is for the GM and players to work together to weave a story out of challenges. The GM has more input than the players on what these are, but not sole input- that's the entire point of the Narration system, to be sure everyone is included in building the world and story. If you go into it thinking that your job as a player is just to win, then yeah, you can break that system over your knee. And you're not playing a game that's catering to how you want to have fun. There's Traditional GM style rules, but they read a little awkwardly to my eye, like it's something bolted on at the last second that doesn't really fit how the rest of the system flows.
"The opposed skill system is so random as to make have high skills a waste. A seasoned trained doctor can fail a tonsillectomy, just because the GM rolled well."
To me, the golden rule- and this is something I wish Destiny and many other systems emphasized- is that you should only make players roll dice if failure is narratively interesting. If it's something that the player should reasonably be able to do without struggle, then hell, let them do it. A tonsillectomy? I would never ask a player to roll that. A tonsillectomy on the Archon's heir, on a burning dropship, with klaxons going on and a DEST strike team coming? Heck yeah you're gonna roll for that, because screwing that up could lead to some interesting story directions.
That said, I am a little chary of having skill resolution always be roll against roll, and not roll against static number. The probability on those is a lot harder to empirically get your hands around which makes balancing a little difficult. It's something I'm willing to let work out in play. Toying around on anydice, I THINK there's something like a 55% chance to hit someone when you have equal modifiers (including ties), 66% chance if you have 1 more, 76% if you have 2 more, etc etc, with 90% chance if you have 4 more and 97% chance if you have 6 more. But I'm still not entirely sure how that'll go in practice yet.
"Character creation is limited at best, mindless at worst."
Limited? Probably I'll agree to that. Mindless? I don't see that at all. There's not a lot of math, but there's not supposed to be; the entire philosophy of the system is something you can jump into quickly. Something the book dances around without making explicit is that it prefers if a group make their characters together, bouncing ideas off of each other to form a group of characters with interlocking narrative hooks, and not an isolated set of mathematically optimal sheets. In the same way D&D has gone to a more streamlined approach to character creation recently, so a lot of games are- asking new players to spend a lot of time in creation is becoming less and less popular.
"From what I have read, this is not a role playing, it's a high-school drama club script writing meeting."
This one appears to be born out of an understandable frustration that you're getting a style of game that you don't personally enjoy, but I have to tell you it's entirely wrong. Role playing is a very broad umbrella. What you're responding to is the fact that a lot of RPGs as we know them have their roots in tabletop wargaming, with the inclusive of story-driven elements being something coming from a different, storytelling wellspring of ideas. In the end, players are assuming some character role and helping to tell a story constrained by a set of mechanical rules. That's it. That's all you have to be to be a roleplaying game. There's an entire submarket of tabletop RPGs that has even *less* rules and even *more* story-driven philosophy than Destiny, believe it or not, and those are RPGs too. It's a terrible thing to assume that only the things you like have worth.
-
The script writing aspect really comes down a lot of things that are assumed away when you agree to use a certain rule set being up for debate, all the time, and especially in the heat of the moment.
-
Looks like it’s
Primer - jump in - basic gameplay - complete creation rules
Unsure if that’s a good format but that appears to be the flow
it's a popular thing right now, to get players to learn all the rules before they make a character. counter productive in my experience, but RPGs is an industry that likes to try and make things work (since most of it is former GMs, i assume- being handed hot garbage from the players and forced to turn it into a working story is the whole game for them)
-
Based on a quick read, there are far too many sample characters. It was a slog going through them all and I didn’t see the need for them. Even if you trim them out you need to place them so they don’t break up the flow of the book. The sample adventure also seems oddly placed.
-
I don't really get the point of the Cues it seems like a waste of time to me. What am I not getting. They seem like a waste of time
-
Anyway, it may work with specific groups and at worst it will probably show faster than a more rules heavy RPG if a group likes the same style of RPG play, which is something.
Well it is a beta so why not try it out? It is more of a storytelling RPG than a guided adventure. They sound chaotic at first but they allow the players to engage in the game more directly and require a more fluid style of GMing. Or perhaps a less rigid style.
-
BTW is this a 3025 era or a Clan era game? I am not sure why the Clan equipment is there if the game is set in 3025
-
Sounds like this is meant to be more of an entry level game in which case lots of sample characters makes sense. It's less a case of "here's what you can do with this system," and more, "not sure what kind of character you want to build? Try one of these."
-
I don't really get the point of the Cues it seems like a waste of time to me. What am I not getting. They seem like a waste of time
It seems as if they are trying to take a page from the Fate rules. The Cues seem to be defining statements about your character that you use to help move the narrative and act as elements the GM can use to push characters into specific actions. The problem to me seems to be that there are so many of them and that the samples are really vague. I think it would be better if there were fewer of them and they were more distinct
-
To me, the golden rule- and this is something I wish Destiny and many other systems emphasized- is that you should only make players roll dice if failure is narratively interesting.
This.
Unless there is an interesting narrative turn involved in them failing an easy task then there shouldn’t be a reason to roll dice.
In the Heroquest rules they even give specific advice on this. Only make a player roll if failing will move the narrative of the game.
-
It seems as if they are trying to take a page from the Fate rules. The Cues seem to be defining statements about your character that you use to help move the narrative and act as elements the GM can use to push characters into specific actions. The problem to me seems to be that there are so many of them and that the samples are really vague. I think it would be better if there were fewer of them and they were more distinct
for me the cues look just like notes someone would make to define his character.
Without a requirement to use them or use them in a consistent way, I kind of miss the functional aspect behind them when talking about a "Cue system".
-
for me the cues look just like notes someone would make to define his character.
Without a requirement to use them or use them in a consistent way, I kind of miss the functional aspect behind them when talking about a "Cue system".
That is kind of how I see it. It is a waste of space in the book and on the record sheet. I don't see were it has real impact on the game.
-
It seems as if they are trying to take a page from the Fate rules. The Cues seem to be defining statements about your character that you use to help move the narrative and act as elements the GM can use to push characters into specific actions. The problem to me seems to be that there are so many of them and that the samples are really vague. I think it would be better if there were fewer of them and they were more distinct
I agree. I don't think there's a mechanical purpose behind them, but they act as seeds/ideas you can use to build your narrations off of. They're writing prompts, in a sense, only formalized somewhat. They named the system after them, I think, because the improvisational aspect is *that important* to how the rules function and they wanted to center that in everyone's mind, and the Cues help keep the improv flowing.
BTW is this a 3025 era or a Clan era game? I am not sure why the Clan equipment is there if the game is set in 3025
It's 3025-*focused* with some Clan rules for Invasion games. Notably there's not really rules for IS level 2 stuff, though it wouldn't be hard to patch that in given all the examples of weapons and gear we already have.
Based on a quick read, there are far too many sample characters. It was a slog going through them all and I didn’t see the need for them. Even if you trim them out you need to place them so they don’t break up the flow of the book. The sample adventure also seems oddly placed.
That said, I kind of agree with this. It broke up the flow of the book and it seemed like there were a few too many. The gameplay examples were well placed and peppered throughout, and I might even want to see some more of those instead. Maybe an example of aero/tank combat.
-
Another thing from my first two read throughs I don't like. Is the limited amount of weapons and no fluff for the weapons. Fluff is really important in a RPG. The limited number of weapons in the book makes it kind of meh. Unless they are also planning to do a Equipment book of some sort at release which would solve that problem.
-
That is kind of how I see it. It is a waste of space in the book and on the record sheet. I don't see were it has real impact on the game.
well in a game where the naration turn comes around to you whether you currently have something useful to contribute or not having some talking points is helpful as a starting point.
Just make sure you have "Weather" and "Philosophy on topic X" on your default cue list, then you will always have a bit of small talk at hand. :)
-
I wonder if the Cues are inspired by D&D 5th ed's backgrounds or vice versa? More or less the same function except 5th's backgrounds do have a game play mechanic of awarding inspiration.
-
I wonder if the Cues are inspired by D&D 5th ed's backgrounds or vice versa? More or less the same function except 5th's backgrounds do have a game play mechanic of awarding inspiration.
I would say no to that.
-
well in a game where the narration turn comes around to you whether you currently have something useful to contribute or not having some talking points is helpful as a starting point.
They do refer to them in the rules as a way for the player or the GM to keep the player on course when they need to, or want to, but for that to work I think that they need to be less of them and have them better defined. Some of the sample characters have Cues that do that (Lovisa Bjornstrom on page 107 for example has 'Did I mention I hate the Combine') but others seem unnecessarily vague and not too useful. Joshua Maron on page 109 has 'What?' as a Cue. To which I can only ask 'What?'?
Traits and Cues seem to be the same thing with one being specified in the rules and the other a freeform improv type thing.
I think a character should have 5 Cues and Traits total and make them core to the character and not so general.
-
This goes to the drama club comparison.
The sound more like actor stage directions then anything.
-
So, first, I will note that I'm fully aware this isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, and that's fine, just like the poster above you noted. It's a very different style of RPG, and for those who don't like it, ATOW is- as the book takes extreme pains to emphasize- still there, and is still going to get supported going forward.
That said, I have to push back against a few of the things you said here, which I know is hyperbole (on the internet, forsooth!) but I don't want to go entirely unchallenged. I'm going to go from the bottom up of your bad notes and kind of dig into some of the things you don't like about it, and discuss that.
"The narrative turn system will be a rule laws/powergamers paradise. Forcing the GM to spend session after secession raining them in."
If you have a group that keeps on doing that after being politely brushed back and after reading the rules, you have a group that's not interested in this style of game. That's not a bad thing, it just means the group is after diffferent methods of fun. Broadly speaking, and reaching back into the hoary old (and oversimplified!) theory from Edwards to try to explain this, there's a few non-mutually-exclusive ways to have fun with a role playing game. Two of those are the gamist style, where the fun comes from following a rigid set of rules and beating them, and the narrativist style, where the fun comes from the storytelling. Most groups- most games- have a balance of those and other ways of having fun. A system like Destiny shifts the lever over mostly, but not entirely, to the narrativist viewpoint, because it's very up front and explicit that the game is about cooperatively telling a story.
What a lot of traditional games like the D&D family have in common is that they work with a gamist sort of fun by encouraging an adversarial relationship, in game, between the players and the GM. The GM sets up a challenge for the players to defeat within the rules, and then the players beat it. Rinse and repeat. The GM is also in sole control of the story to shape a progressive set of challenges towards a goal, and the players have to overcome each of these challenges in turn. That is a common way of doing things! But that's not necessarily what Destiny is asking a group to do. Instead of an adversarial model- which breeds powergaming and rules lawyers- Destiny and other games like it advocate for a cooperative model. The point isn't necessarily for the GM to make a fight and the players to win it. The point is for the GM and players to work together to weave a story out of challenges. The GM has more input than the players on what these are, but not sole input- that's the entire point of the Narration system, to be sure everyone is included in building the world and story. If you go into it thinking that your job as a player is just to win, then yeah, you can break that system over your knee. And you're not playing a game that's catering to how you want to have fun. There's Traditional GM style rules, but they read a little awkwardly to my eye, like it's something bolted on at the last second that doesn't really fit how the rest of the system flows.
"The opposed skill system is so random as to make have high skills a waste. A seasoned trained doctor can fail a tonsillectomy, just because the GM rolled well."
To me, the golden rule- and this is something I wish Destiny and many other systems emphasized- is that you should only make players roll dice if failure is narratively interesting. If it's something that the player should reasonably be able to do without struggle, then hell, let them do it. A tonsillectomy? I would never ask a player to roll that. A tonsillectomy on the Archon's heir, on a burning dropship, with klaxons going on and a DEST strike team coming? Heck yeah you're gonna roll for that, because screwing that up could lead to some interesting story directions.
That said, I am a little chary of having skill resolution always be roll against roll, and not roll against static number. The probability on those is a lot harder to empirically get your hands around which makes balancing a little difficult. It's something I'm willing to let work out in play. Toying around on anydice, I THINK there's something like a 55% chance to hit someone when you have equal modifiers (including ties), 66% chance if you have 1 more, 76% if you have 2 more, etc etc, with 90% chance if you have 4 more and 97% chance if you have 6 more. But I'm still not entirely sure how that'll go in practice yet.
"Character creation is limited at best, mindless at worst."
Limited? Probably I'll agree to that. Mindless? I don't see that at all. There's not a lot of math, but there's not supposed to be; the entire philosophy of the system is something you can jump into quickly. Something the book dances around without making explicit is that it prefers if a group make their characters together, bouncing ideas off of each other to form a group of characters with interlocking narrative hooks, and not an isolated set of mathematically optimal sheets. In the same way D&D has gone to a more streamlined approach to character creation recently, so a lot of games are- asking new players to spend a lot of time in creation is becoming less and less popular.
"From what I have read, this is not a role playing, it's a high-school drama club script writing meeting."
This one appears to be born out of an understandable frustration that you're getting a style of game that you don't personally enjoy, but I have to tell you it's entirely wrong. Role playing is a very broad umbrella. What you're responding to is the fact that a lot of RPGs as we know them have their roots in tabletop wargaming, with the inclusive of story-driven elements being something coming from a different, storytelling wellspring of ideas. In the end, players are assuming some character role and helping to tell a story constrained by a set of mechanical rules. That's it. That's all you have to be to be a roleplaying game. There's an entire submarket of tabletop RPGs that has even *less* rules and even *more* story-driven philosophy than Destiny, believe it or not, and those are RPGs too. It's a terrible thing to assume that only the things you like have worth.
First, play what you like. :thumbsup:
Second, while I don't take offence this was my opinion not fact.
So challenging my opinion seems to be a wast of your time any mine.
As I said at the end there will be people that like this type of game, I don't no any personally, but I know they exist.
And the overall point was it was not advantages to me to spend the time trying to change this into a game I would play or wast CGL time reading responses from me about the system that I'm not the target for and help other that have the same gaming preferences from wasting yours and their time.
-
I do fear that not enough RPGers do like this cue/narrative system and that power gamers are far too common for this to work like CGL hopes.
But I am not going to stand in their way or shout "DOOM!" over this.
I will just hope they re-vamp AToW to be less daunting for character creation, better organized, and doing a better job of embracing/supporting the neo-feudalistic nature of the official setting.
-
I do fear that not enough RPGers do like this cue/narrative system and that power gamers are far too common for this to work like CGL hopes.
But I am not going to stand in their way or shout "DOOM!" over this.
I will just hope they re-vamp AToW to be less daunting for character creation, better organized, and doing a better job of embracing/supporting the neo-feudalistic nature of the official setting.
+1
-
Other RPs have similar character creation. Every RP system tends to be ' love it or hate it' so I don't any one system will get universal love by fans.
-
I do fear that not enough RPGers do like this cue/narrative system and that power gamers are far too common for this to work like CGL hopes.
The Cue system or variants of it are in a lot of systems. It’s a fairly major theme in a lot of RPGs like Fate, Dungeon World, HeroQuest, Apocalypse System etc.
If a GM knows that there are power gamers in their group then they need to either pick a system that works for them and if this isn’t a good match then don’t use it.
I suspect that this system is intended to be for new RPGers or people new to Battletech who want to run an RPG in the universe.
It’s actually a more modern system and fits into the current scheme of non-D&D rpgs than many people may realise
-
It’s actually a more modern system and fits into the current scheme of non-D&D rpgs than many people may realise
Yeah, like I said upthread Destiny is a lot closer to the kinds of games that get run frequently at cons here. It could definitely have a life as an alternate BattleTech RPG
-
The Cue system or variants of it are in a lot of systems. It’s a fairly major theme in a lot of RPGs like Fate, Dungeon World, HeroQuest, Apocalypse System etc.
If a GM knows that there are power gamers in their group then they need to either pick a system that works for them and if this isn’t a good match then don’t use it.
I suspect that this system is intended to be for new RPGers or people new to Battletech who want to run an RPG in the universe.
It’s actually a more modern system and fits into the current scheme of non-D&D rpgs than many people may realise
While I don't disagree with most of what you have said, I do have to challenge the idea that the modern system model is so overwhelmingly popular as some would think.
The top sellers to this day are still games like pathfinder and D&D, and the push-back on Pathfinder 2nd ed and Shadowrun 6th, and the backlash on D&D 4th ed show that the crunch gamers are sill the majority of the market.
-
Yeah, like I said upthread Destiny is a lot closer to the kinds of games that get run frequently at cons here. It could definitely have a life as an alternate BattleTech RPG
As long as it never thins CGL's resources in other areas I am perfectly fine with it existing for players that like that type of game.
First time Illclan, Battletech, Alpha strike, Etc. gets held up for it I will have an issues.
Already not a fan of the fact that AToW is on hold for its development, as the game has been in a holding patter for awhile now, and is effective ou of print in dead-tree format.
-
Jut want to bring up so it doesn't get lost.
I like what was done in the Mech-combat system and think it has utility in AToW and Alpha Strike.
But that is not a discussion for this thread so I will be posting about it latter (going out for my birthday dinner soon) in the AToW 2nd thread.
If you want to discussion this I will see you there later.
-
and on a marketing note, if a company intends to maintain two RPG systems in the same universe, it does make sense to put them notably on different ends of the spectrum. Otherwise you waste a lot of resources if they are too similar and people just see Destiny as a house-ruled AToW with the to be expected complaints why the changes weren't integrated in AToW in the first place.
-
Is there a dedicated thread for responses/feedback to the Beta? I know we got a feedback form, but was wondering if there is a discussion.
Early thoughts:
There is a limit of six skills + those from modules, even for Elite characters who are supposed to have vast experience. As a result, RAW you can't make characters with the sort of broad but shallow skill sets you were almost forced to have in AToW. Special Forces characters are effectively impossible, and in fact, most of the higher-end academy packages from previous editions can't be replicated. Removing this limit would fix that. There are enough points at those high levels....it's just the silly arbitrary limit.
The game keeps mentioning DEST agents as examples of stuff.....but you literally can't make one with the generation system. They have a sample character that they SAY is DEST, but she doesn't have anywhere near the skills needed and is not a Mechwarrior as all DEST operatives of that era had to be. Looks like whoever wrote that character confused DEST and ISF Covert Ops, especially since she has disguise stuff and analysis skills.
Cues and Tags are all just notes for narration, that is correct. Tags are one-word "punchy" descriptions and cues are longer, but they are all just notes to spark people's minds with no mechanical effect.
There are many "Traditional GM" rules that can be switched on to cut out player capability to edit the story entirely. This is a good thing. I can basically run Mechwarrior 2nd Ed with better rules and an abstracted combat system if I want.
There is also a hybrid RPG/TT Campaign system to use in order to add a smidge of RPG depth to Total Warfare/AS campaigns where pilots unlock new abilities and become more famous/dangerous a la Necromunda. Seems awesome for a game store league/multi-day con.
Needs more fluff, especially surrounding what weapons and gear are like, or players who don't have tons of other books won't know what to do with the options they have for weaponry.
Gonna be running this like crazy when it's done, with only a few minor changes (goodbye, Skill limit), but that's because I was able to quickly find all of the "Traditional GM" options and I have tons of other old books for fluff. Needs more meat on the bones, better layout, and more thought to creating broader characters.
-
Is there a dedicated thread for responses/feedback to the Beta? I know we got a feedback form, but was wondering if there is a discussion.
Early thoughts:
There is a limit of six skills + those from modules, even for Elite characters who are supposed to have vast experience. As a result, RAW you can't make characters with the sort of broad but shallow skill sets you were almost forced to have in AToW. Special Forces characters are effectively impossible, and in fact, most of the higher-end academy packages from previous editions can't be replicated. Removing this limit would fix that. There are enough points at those high levels....it's just the silly arbitrary limit.
The game keeps mentioning DEST agents as examples of stuff.....but you literally can't make one with the generation system. They have a sample character that they SAY is DEST, but she doesn't have anywhere near the skills needed and is not a Mechwarrior as all DEST operatives of that era had to be. Looks like whoever wrote that character confused DEST and ISF Covert Ops, especially since she has disguise stuff and analysis skills.
Cues and Tags are all just notes for narration, that is correct. Tags are one-word "punchy" descriptions and cues are longer, but they are all just notes to spark people's minds with no mechanical effect.
There are many "Traditional GM" rules that can be switched on to cut out player capability to edit the story entirely. This is a good thing. I can basically run Mechwarrior 2nd Ed with better rules and an abstracted combat system if I want.
There is also a hybrid RPG/TT Campaign system to use in order to add a smidge of RPG depth to Total Warfare/AS campaigns where pilots unlock new abilities and become more famous/dangerous a la Necromunda. Seems awesome for a game store league/multi-day con.
Needs more fluff, especially surrounding what weapons and gear are like, or players who don't have tons of other books won't know what to do with the options they have for weaponry.
Gonna be running this like crazy when it's done, with only a few minor changes (goodbye, Skill limit), but that's because I was able to quickly find all of the "Traditional GM" options and I have tons of other old books for fluff. Needs more meat on the bones, better layout, and more thought to creating broader characters.
Most people are just using the Update thread as a forum for it. keeps it all together and in a place where the CGL writers can see it.
-
While I don't disagree with most of what you have said, I do have to challenge the idea that the modern system model is so overwhelmingly popular as some would think.
The top sellers to this day are still games like pathfinder and D&D, and the push-back on Pathfinder 2nd ed and Shadowrun 6th, and the backlash on D&D 4th ed show that the crunch gamers are sill the majority of the market.
Wait what? From this statement it would seem you are implying that 4e D&D and PF2 are not crunch heavy when in fact they are both very crunch heavy. At the time it came out it was common to try to assert that 4e was too crunch heavy and not enough fluff.
Also D&D 5e is owning the market for a while now and that is far less crunchy than 4e, PF1, PF2, or any version of 3e D&D. This actively works against your assertion. If anything it would tell me that on the whole people are looking away from the crunchier games and looking back to games with less crunch.
Now that is what I see from an in general perspective from a Battletech perspective that may not hold as true because Battletech is a crunchy game to start with so I could see an argument that if you want to attract current Battletech gamers that a crunchier game may be optimal even if it may be less desirable in the general population at this time.
Also from my experience rules lawyering tends to happen more when you have more hard and fast rules rather than if you have more rules that are based around rulings. I had way more rules lawyering going on back when I had 3e and 4e than I did playing AD&D (and before) and 5e games. In those games I tend to have to make more rulings and people may try to convince me of the merits of a certain decision but in the end the DM rules how it goes and since the rules do not directly say what should happen in those instances the rules lawyer has nothing to use against you (well they have no rules to use against you I should say). Really big rules lawyers tend to get fairly frustrated by that.
EDIT: I would like to note I do not know the mechanics of this particular game so my comments are more of in general experience with other games and I will admit may not apply to this particular game if they have some key differences with the game I do have experience with.
-
Is there a dedicated thread for responses/feedback to the Beta? I know we got a feedback form, but was wondering if there is a discussion.
Early thoughts:
There is a limit of six skills + those from modules, even for Elite characters who are supposed to have vast experience. As a result, RAW you can't make characters with the sort of broad but shallow skill sets you were almost forced to have in AToW. Special Forces characters are effectively impossible, and in fact, most of the higher-end academy packages from previous editions can't be replicated. Removing this limit would fix that. There are enough points at those high levels....it's just the silly arbitrary limit.
It looks to me like the skill limit only applies during character creation, and that you can buy more skills with XP later on. But otherwise yeah, it's a weirdly arbitrary limit when you're working with the likes of elite or even veteran characters.
-
First off, happy birthday, victor_shaw, and many happy returns! :thumbsup:
My own reading of the rules is a mixed bag. A lot I like, and some that I'm apprehensive about.
The Narration system I feel is a little daunting to wrap my head around. I like it for non-combat situations, but I'd prefer (and am glad CGL gave the option for) a more traditional initiative system for combat, just as who goes first is important to me in a combat situation. Also, for combat, I'd have liked a little more granular movement rules to allow for more tactical decisions for the players and GM, but maybe that's part of the Narration process I missed (maybe something like "Sam Pell moves up to Close range, dodging and weaving, and ducking behind a Tri-Dee billboard for cover, trying to get behind the Maskirovka agent as best he can" is supposed to be the norm rather than just "I move to Close range").
That being said, I am very interested in it for non-combat situations as is, with one caveat. In the rules it does say that players and thre GM are supposed to roll with Narrations rather than overruling them. I just fear that that can lead not so much to powergaming, but spotlight-stealing. The GM ought to be given some agency to put his or her foot down when something is about to cause OOC trouble in the group and I don't quite see that in there. (I missed something akin to it on page 62, which covers some, but not all, of my concerns).I like the idea that die rolls are not made for every task, but just ones that have a chance of failure (even though this is supposed to be the default assumption in RPGs), and I like the improvisational nature of play and giving the players some shared ownership in the story and not just "you're going to the Tomb of Horrors, like it or lump it, and all roads you may try to go will lead to Acererak." It does take a group that's willing to risk going off the rails and a DM who's not going to "rocks fall, everyone dies" the group every time he or she sees them change the story's direction. That is going to be a major paradigm shift for groups who have played traditional "Dungeons & Travellers"-style games. And it is going to take careful pre-game communication among the group to find their comfort zone since improvisations can take the game in directions players or the GM may adamantly not want to go.
Mech Combat: I like it very much so far. I'm still getting my head around it completely, but it does look to e to strike that sweet spot for Mech combat in an RPG setting. TW and even Alpha Strike, as great as they are, are unsuited to RPG sessions just by virtue of the length it takes to play a full game -- you're essentially pausing one game to play another, and that's not even getting into the issues of "OK, just how do we handle characters on foot in the middle of a raging Mech battle?" or "OK, how do we handle a character taking a TW point of damage when we go back to character scale?"
This eliminates those issues handily, I think. I like that the system is recognizably BattleTech in design, and is not just abstract or merely narrative. And I'm grateful for the option to use BattleTech minis in the combats. Any chance to push around brightly painted plastic is a bonus to me.
Character creation: THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU! I was completely turned off by AToW by how complex creation was. The process is a breeze in this game. I like the simplified skills and the actually IMO innovative way of linking the damage charts to the STR and WIL attributes. Also, the simplified life paths are a blessing (they remind me almost of Mongoose Traveller's background skills more than anything).
One thing though, why were the skills put all the way at the front of the book and not with the rest of the creation rules? It makes for a lot of page flipping between a good 30-40 pages. Also, I'm still trying to grok the mech conversion rules with regards to missile weapons.
My only concern so far is a lack of a money system (I understand where the devs were going with the idea in trying to keep it from being "Papers and Paychecks" or "AccountTech", and I heartily agree that's not what I want either), as being broke can be a story impetus for the players (how do they pay to replace the faulty actuator on Loren Ipsum's Phoenix Hawk? Can they scrape up enough money to get passage on a Dropship to get to Dustball? What if they sell T.B. Dee's Marauder? Or want to monetize salvage? What if they want to go to the black market on Victoria and haggle over highly illegal support weapons?). It doesn't seem to be something that can be just left to Narration (this is one of those times where the GM ought to be allowed to put a foot down if the player says "oh, and Sam Pell, looking at the 50 billion C-Bills on his cred-chip...") and purchasing items, especially very expensive items on occasion (*coughbattlemechscough*) is a part of the game experience. And I don't see how that can be done without even an abstract money/wealth/credit system.
That being said, I like the idea of starting equipment the character just *has*, and doesn't have to keep track of, as well as the idea of "A-Team ammunition" for the most part, though I think the GM ought to be able to spend a plot point if it's dramatically appropriate to say "and your ammo just ran out. What do you do?".
Which brings me to plot points, which I think I will absolutely love. Letting players and the GM spend points to change the situation (as long as it's not retconning something that's already happened, I'm not quite on board with that) or get situational advantage or just to make the scenario more dramatic is always a plus.
-
The thing that does confuse me is why are their Dispositions as well as Cues? Couldn’t the Dispositions just be Cues?
-
Wait what? From this statement it would seem you are implying that 4e D&D and PF2 are not crunch heavy when in fact they are both very crunch heavy. At the time it came out it was common to try to assert that 4e was too crunch heavy and not enough fluff.
Also D&D 5e is owning the market for a while now and that is far less crunchy than 4e, PF1, PF2, or any version of 3e D&D. This actively works against your assertion. If anything it would tell me that on the whole people are looking away from the crunchier games and looking back to games with less crunch.
Now that is what I see from an in general perspective from a Battletech perspective that may not hold as true because Battletech is a crunchy game to start with so I could see an argument that if you want to attract current Battletech gamers that a crunchier game may be optimal even if it may be less desirable in the general population at this time.
Also from my experience rules lawyering tends to happen more when you have more hard and fast rules rather than if you have more rules that are based around rulings. I had way more rules lawyering going on back when I had 3e and 4e than I did playing AD&D (and before) and 5e games. In those games I tend to have to make more rulings and people may try to convince me of the merits of a certain decision but in the end the DM rules how it goes and since the rules do not directly say what should happen in those instances the rules lawyer has nothing to use against you (well they have no rules to use against you I should say). Really big rules lawyers tend to get fairly frustrated by that.
3rd has been considered the crunchiest of the D&D editions by most and 5th is a slightly and I repeat slight less crunch version of that.
4th was an attempt at MMO style lower crunch game. Played it so don't tell me it was not.
Have not played PF 2 since it is was still in beta the last time I looked, but everything I read about it stated it would going for a modern low crunch system that the testers hated.
As for rule lawyering/powergaming. This has been going on in every game since I started playing back it the late 80's. It is by no means a new thing.
The term is also more about a self-centered player type that has to be the center of the game either by being the most powerful (powergaming) or drawing attention to him self by arguing about the rules (rule lawyer). The latter not needing a lot of rules to argue about and and in his/her element in a system with a more interpretive rule system
And none of what you said disproves that narrative/storyteller games are not as hot on the market as some tend to think. It actually proves the opposite.
-
@Crimson Dawn
Also not sure of your definition of crunch.
As it we look to be come at this with different definitions if you think 4th is crunch.
-
3rd has been considered the crunchiest of the D&D editions by most and 5th is a slightly and I repeat slight less crunch version of that.
4th was an attempt at MMO style lower crunch game. Played it so don't tell me it was not.
Have not played PF 2 since it is was still in beta the last time I looked, but everything I read about it stated it would going for a modern low crunch system that the testers hated.
As for rule lawyering/powergaming. This has been going on in every game since I started playing back it the late 80's. It is by no means a new thing.
The term is also more about a self-centered player type that has to be the center of the game either by being the most powerful (powergaming) or drawing attention to him self by arguing about the rules (rule lawyer). The latter not needing a lot of rules to argue about and and in his/her element in a system with a more interpretive rule system
And none of what you said disproves that narrative/storyteller games are not as hot on the market as some tend to think. It actually proves the opposite.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is out in DTF and it is frankly a bit of a mixed bag.
It has probably more crunch than first and offends the sensibilities of my gaming group with how pretentious it is about certain things but still looks interesting enough that I know we'll give it a fair shake by actually trying it once the Beastiary is out for it.
But that's enough about that, we can talk about it further in a more appropriate thread.
-
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is out in DTF and it is frankly a bit of a mixed bag.
It has probably more crunch than first and offends the sensibilities of my gaming group with how pretentious it is about certain things but still looks interesting enough that I know we'll give it a fair shake by actually trying it once the Beastiary is out for it.
But that's enough about that, we can talk about it further in a more appropriate thread.
Works for me.
-
Jut want to bring up so it doesn't get lost.
I like what was done in the Mech-combat system and think it has utility in AToW and Alpha Strike.
But that is not a discussion for this thread so I will be posting about it latter (going out for my birthday dinner soon) in the AToW 2nd thread.
If you want to discussion this I will see you there later.
I just said something similar in that thread. Great minds think alike 8)
-
While I don't disagree with most of what you have said, I do have to challenge the idea that the modern system model is so overwhelmingly popular as some would think.
I don't think I meant to imply that they were 'overwhelmingly popular' but when you look at RPGs that are not pathfinder and D&D then you see a lot of movement (as long as its not OSR) towards a more group narrative approach to games.
I tend to play, and read, a lot of indie or small press RPGs so my outlook is very biased in that respect.
The top sellers to this day are still games like pathfinder and D&D, and the push-back on Pathfinder 2nd ed and Shadowrun 6th, and the backlash on D&D 4th ed show that the crunch gamers are sill the majority of the market.
I can't comment on Pathfinder as I think it has too many stats, too many skills and far too much 'crunch' to it. D&D 5th Ed can be played as far more of a narrative game than any previous edition. I agree that it isn't entirely modern but I think that it moved away from the 3/3.5 style of gaming even though it does appear to have a lot of rules. There is a ton of chrome in the game but compared to Pathfinder it requires a lot less stats, skills and die rolling than a game like Pathfinder. I think it is why it is so successful
-
I don't often post here, but I needed to take the time to say something here I felt, because this has been something I've been looking forward to for a long time.
MechWarrior Destiny is everything I've been wanting out of a BattleTech RPG in the last few years. I'm surrounded by people who aren't familiar with what BattleTech is. They may have dabbled in one of the early MechWarrior games, or maybe seen the PC game online. But ultimately, they're not at all familiar with the universe. I tried putting together an AToW group. It turned out to be hard even for me to run. I don't find having to make complicated spreadsheets and automated formulas just to make a character to be fun. Most of my group doesn't either. But I've been aching to introduce people to the universe because it's something I love, and they've expressed interest as well. There just wasn't a good way in which to do so.
This gives that chance.
To me, an RPG should be able cooperatively telling a fun and engaging story together. If people are worried about powergamers, that's a problem with the people you play with, not the system itself. I've been very selective in the kinds of people I've been putting together to run this game. Like other people have said, you have to pick the right game for the right people. Or the right people for the right game. Just because it doesn't fit your style doesn't make it a bad system. There's been a lot of demand for more rules-light, narrative-driven RPGs on the market, and I'm glad to see BattleTech dipping its toes into it, too. I want my players to focus on roleplaying their characters and getting immersed in the story and setting, not figuring out how to min-max the numbers on their character sheet and game the system.
As for combining it with Total War or Alpha Strike, I think it's a great idea, too. I definitely plan to do so. Yes, Total Warfare games take a long time, and so can Alpha Strike games even. But my plan is to alternate back and forth between RP sessions and tactical combat sessions. One week, it may be purely RP setting up for the next engagement. Next week, we carry out the mission. Following session, we RP out the aftermath. You don't have to have sessions that combine both RP and combat. Split it up. Plan it out. To me, the thought of running a BattleTech campaign like a strategy RPG is exciting.
There are undoubtedly going to be some flaws here and there. I already see Willpower could end up being a dump attribute with so few meaningful skills tied to it. But I'm definitely eager to test the system out and run a game with my group finally after all these years.
-
Another specific issue I see is with "Inventory" items. A character gets four. And they range from "Audio/Video Storage Chip" to "Fusion Recharger". That's just a little too broad of a spectrum for items that are supposedly so generic a character only gets four.
-
I'm really favourably impressed with what I see in MW: Destiny so far -- it's about as light as I need it to be, and the 'mech combat / crossover stuff is looking promising.
It's what I need it to be -- and a co-created narrative isn't a bad thing or a negative mark, it's just a different approach than before.
-
A different approach that requires a level of ongoing cooperation rather in excess of what I'm used to seeing from BattleTech players, honestly. If you have a group that can pull it off, more power to you.
-
Another specific issue I see is with "Inventory" items. A character gets four. And they range from "Audio/Video Storage Chip" to "Fusion Recharger". That's just a little too broad of a spectrum for items that are supposedly so generic a character only gets four.
I would assume it's supposed to represent things that the character has immediate access to. How much do you carry with you on a normal day, even at work?
-
I would assume it's supposed to represent things that the character has immediate access to. How much do you carry with you on a normal day, even at work?
For me it tends to be a minimum of two pens, two cell phones, a swiss army knife, my keys(which have a 8 GB USB stick on the key chain), and my wallet.
I can easily add a binder to hold my paperwork/be a hard writing surface, my tool kit, a roll of one wrap velcro, a roll of packing tape, and my laptop to that.
Since my tool bag is too full of tools for me to stuff the packing tape or velcro in I can certainly understand the worry about the inconsistency of how items can be defined and how a character can be limited to only four.
-
Tool bag
Phone(s)
Utility Knife
Laptop
There, easy enough. Similarly to "most easy tasks don't require a roll", there are a number of things you can reasonably assume your character has on-hand that don't need to be noted on an inventory sheet. "Personal identification" and "access to personal funds" are definitely on the list.
I feel like it can't be emphasized enough that Destiny is not an adversarial relationship with the GM; the perceived inconsistency with how items can be defined is... honestly not important. It speaks to interpreting rules primarily as restrictions and not opportunities.
-
I feel like it can't be emphasized enough that Destiny is not an adversarial relationship with the GM; the perceived inconsistency with how items can be defined is... honestly not important. It speaks to interpreting rules primarily as restrictions and not opportunities.
very few games encourage an adversarial relationship with the GM. but a great many players begin the hobby embracing such a relationship all the same.......
-
very few games encourage an adversarial relationship with the GM. but a great many players begin the hobby embracing such a relationship all the same.......
I'm beginning to suspect that people took the "Kill the bastards" note in the GMs section of Paranoia literally rather than as a joke,,,
-
And what about my data chip(USB drive on my keychain)?
It is quite certainly a fifth discreet item that doesn't quite fit in with anything else.
I'm beginning to suspect that people took the "Kill the bastards" note in the GMs section of Paranoia literally rather than as a joke,,,
I think it comes down to our inherently competitive nature as human beings more than anything else.
-
My reading of the situation is that this is intended to be a very rules light game, given that BT/TW is the opposite I have to wonder at the logic of that decission.
Beyond that reading through the sample characters I've spotted things that don't give me much hope, many core skills seem to be absent: Detective Work, Fixing, Intrusion, Medicine, Social Engineering, Technology, and Transportation. The last might be covered under the rules light thing, but the others are kind-of important.
Take Darice Garzi, she's a spy for the MoC who's cover is a Courtesan, she has Intimidation, but no ability to get information out of people using her feminine charms, she has an Advanced Security Bypass Kit, but no skill to actually use it or generally otherwise get past security systems, nor does she have the ability to pull plans off of computers (rules light may offer an out, but probably shouldn't for computer hacking). No medical skills, no way to suss out who she needs to bribe/seduce or get equipment.
-
very few games encourage an adversarial relationship with the GM. but a great many players begin the hobby embracing such a relationship all the same.......
And what about my data chip(USB drive on my keychain)?
It is quite certainly a fifth discreet item that doesn't quite fit in with anything else.
I think it comes down to our inherently competitive nature as human beings more than anything else.
I'm beginning to suspect that people took the "Kill the bastards" note in the GMs section of Paranoia literally rather than as a joke,,,
The effect comes from the layout of a traditional RPG and human competitive nature combined.
Since the GM creates the story, runs the NPC, rolls the killing blows, Etc. it is natural for the PCs to develop a us against him/her mentality.
This tends to get egged on by the large numbers of GMs that tend to delight in creating a Hellscape to torture their players with each session.
Overtime these players go on to form their own groups and the pattern repeats.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it happens.
And some people like these type of games.
-
...
I feel like it can't be emphasized enough that Destiny is not an adversarial relationship with the GM; the perceived inconsistency with how items can be defined is... honestly not important. It speaks to interpreting rules primarily as restrictions and not opportunities.
...
even if you take out any adversarial relationship or competitive nature, Destiny is still goal oriented.
If you don't define the framework for the narrative freedom of the player (holds for items and their functionality, as well as the other world choices the players can throw in on their narration) then the missing rule isn't an opportunity, as either players either have to leave character and discuss "can I?"(if they are defensive in their choices) or it causes lots of rulings of the referee (if they are more aggressive in their choices and the GM has to reign them in).
I wouldn't want the system for any multi-session situation without a lot of meta preparation meetings to hash out the details of that framework yourself or you end up with your narrative all over the place in terms of consistency - which to be honest can be hilarious in one shots.
-
even if you take out any adversarial relationship or competitive nature, Destiny is still goal oriented.
If you don't define the framework for the narrative freedom of the player (holds for items and their functionality, as well as the other world choices the players can throw in on their narration) then the missing rule isn't an opportunity, as either players either have to leave character and discuss "can I?"(if they are defensive in their choices) or it causes lots of rulings of the referee (if they are more aggressive in their choices and the GM has to reign them in).
I wouldn't want the system for any multi-session situation without a lot of meta preparation meetings to hash out the details of that framework yourself or you end up with your narrative all over the place in terms of consistency - which to be honest can be hilarious in one shots.
I think you hit the nail on the head about why this game is a Con game and not a campaign game.
Consistency is the cornerstone of a good RPG campaign game. The players are running their characters through the already existing universe not creating their own.
So while this type of game works in a undefined setting that has no hard and fast rules.
With the BTU you have 35+ years of real world and 900+ years of in-universe definition to the setting.
Thing work the way they do (even if it doesn't always make sense) because that how they work.
If you are looking to run a Con or beer and pretzel one shot game I can see this system working, but not if you are truly trying to play in the battletech universe.
-
Asgo and Victor_Shaw are exactly right. It's impossible to have consistency when the system permits (virtually requires) constant redefinition of what's going on at a potentially deep level from player to player.
Regarding the Inventory issue, Scotty is addressing the low end. How many characters are going to lug around a Mr. Fusion? And going to back to a much older argument, if a Mr. Fusion is man-portable (since Inventory doesn't weigh anything any more), why isn't BA powered by one again? Solar Rechargers run under 2kg in AToW, and absolutely make sense on the list. And at the low end, the memory chip is listed separately form any device that would make it useful. If the list is going to be that granular, four is the wrong number, as monbvol pointed out. There are multiple issues here, and no simple explanation will sort them all out.
-
Well, I'm certainly glad that this thread has come to the conclusion that the many tabletop games in the marketplace that rely on a cooperative PC-GM relationship aren't really campaign games and just won't ever work consistently. I'll have to notify my group that we've just been playing at imaginary Cons, and not really campaigns; for good measure I should go back and edit the roll20 logs of some of the games we've played to add more zaniness from player to player. :D Y'all are getting kind of strangely funny about this.
You're wargamers at heart, and you're interpreting roleplaying through that lens. Making extremely broad statements about how it's only natural for players and game masters to be at each other's throats is all a bit silly, isn't it? Generalizing your own experience to an entire, ultra-broad hobby isn't a really... useful way to go about things, I wouldn't think. Now, you can certainly make the argument, as some in this thread has, that placing a game like this into a fanbase that has been brought up on tabletop games that encourage that sort of black and white adversarial relationship is a strange decision, but in my eyes it's pretty clearly to give people who are interested in the setting a foothold into it without having to go through a 90s-heritage spreadsheet RPG or having to learn an 80s-heritage somewhat kludgy (as much as I love it) tabletop ruleset in all its occasionally bizarre permutations. And I'm more than a little baffled at some of the hostility to the idea of giving another group of people a gentler way into something we here theoretically love.
-
I just submitted the character creation data scattering and attribute oddness issues via the form. We'll see if those go anywhere. Destiny isn't for me, but if we're going to bring in new players to the overall game, it needs to be easier to understand than it is.
-
Just submitted another issue via the form. There's no "Out of Range" in 'mech combat. As written, units with Long range weapons cannot be escaped.
-
Holy cats! Scorpion Tanks are the new Savannah Masters (page 165 refers)... They move 4 (as fast as any hover tanks and the Locust), have an AC/5 (a long range weapon, which is inescapable as I noted above), and retain the Machine Gun too. Their armor isn't bad, either.
-
I submitted the Scorpion as a typo. We'll see how that goes...
-
Well, I'm certainly glad that this thread has come to the conclusion that the many tabletop games in the marketplace that rely on a cooperative PC-GM relationship aren't really campaign games and just won't ever work consistently. I'll have to notify my group that we've just been playing at imaginary Cons, and not really campaigns; for good measure I should go back and edit the roll20 logs of some of the games we've played to add more zaniness from player to player. :D Y'all are getting kind of strangely funny about this.
You're wargamers at heart, and you're interpreting roleplaying through that lens. Making extremely broad statements about how it's only natural for players and game masters to be at each other's throats is all a bit silly, isn't it? Generalizing your own experience to an entire, ultra-broad hobby isn't a really... useful way to go about things, I wouldn't think. Now, you can certainly make the argument, as some in this thread has, that placing a game like this into a fanbase that has been brought up on tabletop games that encourage that sort of black and white adversarial relationship is a strange decision, but in my eyes it's pretty clearly to give people who are interested in the setting a foothold into it without having to go through a 90s-heritage spreadsheet RPG or having to learn an 80s-heritage somewhat kludgy (as much as I love it) tabletop ruleset in all its occasionally bizarre permutations. And I'm more than a little baffled at some of the hostility to the idea of giving another group of people a gentler way into something we here theoretically love.
This seems to be your go to defensive stand on this.
But structure has nothing to do with it being a wargame or not.
An established structure is a literary term as old as the spoken word.
Universal structure is the difference between a well developed story and "The Last Jedi"
Player 1 turn: Sets up the path to becoming a Jedi, how space travel works. (Requires training)
Player 2 turn: Introduces the Main NPC characters and there personalities.
Player 3 turn: Sets up the ending narrative and the begin of a new story.
Player 4 turn: Changes how you become a Jedi (now you just have to know you are and can use the force)
Player 5 turn: Changes the personalities of the Main NPC characters.
Player 6 turn: Now you can use your ship as a weapon and it requires gas.
The point is Hollywood is in the mess it is right now because of loose stroytelling like this game allows.
Have you ever hear the old sangs "Too many cooks in the kitchen" or "Too may chiefs not enough Indians"
Having played for so long I have seen systems fads like this come and go all the time "diceless games anyone"
When I worked in my friends gaming story and I got to go to the Alliance retail conventions, I got to see all the new ideas coming down the pipes.
And the one constant was these indie type (modern) games would get a good quick following then 1-2 year(s) down the road the trend wold pass and we maybe sold one expansion book per year if it didn't just vanish from the Alliance catalog.
The only systems that seem to weather it all are the traditional system.
Again play was you like, if you can make it work as a campaign then more power to you.
The majority of tables I have been to (and that's a lot over multiple states and countries) can't make this work as anything other then a one-shot.
-
My reading of the situation is that this is intended to be a very rules light game, given that BT/TW is the opposite I have to wonder at the logic of that decission.
Beyond that reading through the sample characters I've spotted things that don't give me much hope, many core skills seem to be absent: Detective Work, Fixing, Intrusion, Medicine, Social Engineering, Technology, and Transportation. The last might be covered under the rules light thing, but the others are kind-of important.
Take Darice Garzi, she's a spy for the MoC who's cover is a Courtesan, she has Intimidation, but no ability to get information out of people using her feminine charms, she has an Advanced Security Bypass Kit, but no skill to actually use it or generally otherwise get past security systems, nor does she have the ability to pull plans off of computers (rules light may offer an out, but probably shouldn't for computer hacking). No medical skills, no way to suss out who she needs to bribe/seduce or get equipment.
Detective Work: Investigation
Fixing: Technician
Intrusion: Depends on your approach, could be any one of several skills
Medicine: MedTech
Social Engineering: Depends on your approach, can include Acting, Intimidation, Protocol, Disguise, Negotiation
Technology: Technician
Transportation: Piloting
The skill descriptions pretty much cover almost everything, the only thing I see missing is something that's explicitly related to picking locks. Electronic locks are covered by Computers, mechanical locks are another thing.
-
I'll take vagueness over excessive bookkeeping.
-
I'll take vagueness over excessive bookkeeping.
Each to their own.
-
At the same time, the vast majority of your existing players (CBT, AS, AToW) are likely Wargamers at heart. I'm going to have a really hard time selling my group to playtest a system that doesn't even have solid rules for something as basic as how many wounds are healed when using a First-aid kit vs. a Trauma pack.
Systems like FATE attract a certain type of players, and my experience has been those are not often the players interested in Battletech style settings. You're asking players used to a dramatically different style of gameplay to test something many of them are going to actively dislike.
Naritive systems are fine, but some things need defined rules more than others. Currently, for example, Grenades have no rules for the size of the blast, catching allies in the area of effect, or really any potential downside. I can toss a Grenade into the middle of a melee, select the three (not 100% sure on the numbers here) Thugs knifing my buddy as the targets, and declare during my Naration that he's blown clean of the blast unharmed after being shielded from the Shrapnel by Thug 2's body.
A few things that might help, off the top of my head, are some more detailed equipment listings with rules (medical gear, support weapons, Explosives).
Another thing that might be helpful is some form of Margin of Success / Failure. Perhaps an optional rule that allows non-attack rolls that Miss by 2 to result in "Marginal Results", that have the desired effect, but with a downside (for example, you successfully bypassed the lock, but triggered an alarm in the process).
The Mech-Scale combat rules actually seem like the strongest part on first reading. The range bands could even by substituted with Adjacent/Short/Medium/Long from Alpha Strike with movement multiplied by 4" for a nice Miniatures rules to. That's more "Crunchy" than AS but faster playing that AGoAC.
-
I recommend you look at those mech-scale rules again. There's no "Out of Range", which means units with Long range weapons are inescapable. If they're fast too, they win, since they can keep the range open.
-
The Mech-Scale combat rules actually seem like the strongest part on first reading. The range bands could even by substituted with Adjacent/Short/Medium/Long from Alpha Strike with movement multiplied by 4" for a nice Miniatures rules to. That's more "Crunchy" than AS but faster playing that AGoAC.
This seems to be the only thing from this game that everyone can agree on.
I personal think the armor and maybe the weapon stats would make great optional rules for AS proper.
-
...
The skill descriptions pretty much cover almost everything, the only thing I see missing is something that's explicitly related to picking locks. Electronic locks are covered by Computers, mechanical locks are another thing.
I would go with a situational approach for lock picking.
Technician if it involves analyzing the mechanics of the lock
Escape Artist if it specifically is related to escaping
Athletics if it is a brute force approach.
(perhaps stealth if you try to be not obvious about it (it already has the relation to pickpocketing))
-
I'll take vagueness over excessive bookkeeping.
100% agree
-
BTW is this a 3025 era or a Clan era game? I am not sure why the Clan equipment is there if the game is set in 3025
Actually, I tripped over this as well. I love the fact that this game wants to primarily support 3025, but also cater to 3050. But at 40 pages, The Clans is not really an appendix any more, not if the book itself has 240 pages in total.
Now, again, I love both ideas. I love the idea of a rules light system and I love that a complete setting, its rules and character creation have only totalled up to 240 pages, but I get the slight notion, this book doesn't really know what it wants to be. After all, the 3025 fluff, character creation rules and Warriors's Catalog mount up to no a lot more than these 40 pages The Clans get.
Now, I see two options here. Either MWD sticks to the Kickstarter and brands itself a game of the Clan Invasion era, possibly giving options of creating characters during the preceding decades, or it cuts down on The Clans somewhat and keeps the rest of the stuff for the separate Clan sourcebook.
That's just a first impression, though. Not sure if it will hold up, once I studied and discussed it further.
-
I'll take vagueness over excessive bookkeeping.
Conveniently, the definition of "excessive" is vague...
-
It's 3025-*focused* with some Clan rules for Invasion games. Notably there's not really rules for IS level 2 stuff, though it wouldn't be hard to patch that in given all the examples of weapons and gear we already have.
Yeah, that was the idea, but as I already wrote, The Clans get almost as much fluff and special rules as the 3025 factions.
Now, this might not be for everybody, but why not shorten the MWD rule book and produce short add-ons as high quality sofcovers for The Invading Clans, The Homeworld Clans, IS 3050, The Star League etc. I think, 50 pages would be enough and these softcovers - meeting quality standards of the new AGoAC rule book, would be easy to produce, but still look good.
-
I think the minimum print run might be an obstacle to that strategy. Hardcopy is expensive. It could totally work with pdfs, though.
-
Did anyone else notice that Branth's have an INT of 6, and Nolan's a 7?? ???
-
There are many "Traditional GM" rules that can be switched on to cut out player capability to edit the story entirely. This is a good thing. I can basically run Mechwarrior 2nd Ed with better rules and an abstracted combat system if I want.
It's good of you to point that out. I get a lot of MW2 vibes off of MWD, which is good in my opinion. I actually was thinking about heavily house ruling MW2 and MWC for a new campaign. If MWD holds up and enables me to play non-Warrior games as well, I might switch to it, before cracking my head open on house rule mathematics for MW2.
-
It's good of you to point that out. I get a lot of MW2 vibes off of MWD, which is good in my opinion. I actually was thinking about heavily house ruling MW2 and MWC for a new campaign. If MWD holds up and enables me to play non-Warrior games as well, I might switch to it, before cracking my head open on house rule mathematics for MW2.
Here's a site that may help.
https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home (https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home)
-
As an avid RPGer not a wargamer, I like a lot of what I see in Mechwarrior Destiny. The basic ruleset is fast, simple, easy to teach/learn, and very flexible. I like that as a GM. You don't need a plethora of tables or modifiers to remember.
The two largest concerns about the new system (other than fears of it being a Shadowrun Anarchy clone) was Character Creation and backward compatibility. Character creation is pretty quick and easy. I don't need a complex spreadsheet. And although not directly compatible, the system is simple and flexible enough I can extrapolate and import Skills, Traits, Equipment, Life Paths from any previous edition with little ease.
The section on Narrative Gameplay I take as a suggestion myself. I've been doing stuff like that myself for years anyway. And despite other naysayers, narrative games are trending in modern/indie games.
The Mech-scale combat is a breath of fresh air and one of the best rules that Battletech RPGs have offered. It is not overly complex like earlier version and I can see myself incorporating it onto a Battletech mapsheet with some minis.
I have already submitted quite a few suggestions into the feedback page on the Kickstarter. If you want to improve the game, you should too.
-
Here's a site that may help.
https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home (https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home)
Interesting! I especially like the author's "Background Package Option". It looks a lot like an extremely simplified version of AToW's Life Module system (and I don't mean that in a bad way).
-
Conveniently, the definition of "excessive" is vague...
1 - Tracking a ton of equipment that, in all honesty, should be assumed on-hand
2 - A character creation life path system that is so detailed it drives people away, in a system that is inherently deadly, so you have to do it all over again
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.
EDIT: I'm leaving suggestions up to the RPG guys, but my hope is that 'mech combat can also be used on a mapsheet as a halfway between Alpha Strike and A Game of Armored Combat. Just so the focus is on the characters, but it's detailed just enough where 'Mechs are an extension on them. This might be the case, but I am terrible at reading PDF's over paper.
-
1- Some equipment is appropriately tracked that way, some is not (compare a ton of rations to say, a C3 Slave unit).
2- AToW could be cleaned up a bit, but a spreadsheet takes care of that problem for me. Honestly, increasing investment in a character is not a bad thing. How much attachment did you have to any Traveler character you ever made, where death DURING character creation was quite common?
-
1 - Tracking a ton of equipment that, in all honesty, should be assumed on-hand
2 - A character creation life path system that is so detailed it drives people away, in a system that is inherently deadly, so you have to do it all over again
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.
EDIT: I'm leaving suggestions up to the RPG guys, but my hope is that 'mech combat can also be used on a mapsheet as a halfway between Alpha Strike and A Game of Armored Combat. Just so the focus is on the characters, but it's detailed just enough where 'Mechs are an extension on them. This might be the case, but I am terrible at reading PDF's over paper.
Agree with Points 1 and 2. Even though I don't mind, a spreadsheet should not be necessary for gameplay. I mentioned earlier it looks like you could run this on a map in conjuction with CBT/Alpha Strike rules pretty easy.
-
1 - Tracking a ton of equipment that, in all honesty, should be assumed on-hand
2 - A character creation life path system that is so detailed it drives people away, in a system that is inherently deadly, so you have to do it all over again
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.
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.
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.
-
Victor_Shaw has the right of the "fits BattleTech well" issue. It may have started as a beer and pretzels game, but it's definitely more of a war game now. And honestly, neither "beer and pretzels" nor "wargame" fits this more narrative style, at least in my opinion.
-
Also I feel it fair to point out that a spreadsheet isn't strictly necessary for AToW. It really depends on how organized you are as an individual.
Especially if you use point buy instead of module.
-
True, it can totally be done by hand. Though I'll add BiggRigg's videos demonstrate the level of effort required for that.
-
Also I feel it fair to point out that a spreadsheet isn't strictly necessary for AToW. It really depends on how organized you are as an individual.
Especially if you use point buy instead of module.
Any chance of you updating you spreadsheet by the way. ;D
Love that thing.
-
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.
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 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.
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.
So no hyperdrive out of you butt but a gas mask is fine.
Anyway the point was that the players had every opportunity to find out about the gas trap and others in the crypt if they had just paid the 50 credits and talked to the NPC, but they ignored him and ran off to the planet.
And the game allowed then to half-@$$ it with a destiny point.
As to the second part, it has never been about making the game for me, I already told CGL I was not going to waste their time trying to make the game fit my style.
It's about MW:D being thought off as a gateway to the BTU when it is so far removed as to bring in a group of people that will most likely not be interested in the rest of the line.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here's a site that may help.
https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home (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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
***MOD DIRECTIVE***
Everyone needs to settle down. We aren't using warnings, yet, but that's the next step.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think the issue revolves around what exactly "works" means.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
Warhammer (GW) is struggling massively right now, as there steal their wallet and run them dry business model is falling them.
I've even hear talk of FFG thinking about buying out the company.
FFG mini games have all but died in my local area, as again they depend to much on having the newest minis.
Battletech and Alpha strike are still going strong here, and it not just the old guard as the other day I saw a couple of old-timers playing with a couple of 20 somethings and having a blast. If it has died in you area try to bring it back, but if you go in with the you want to play this out of date 35 year old game, I don't think it will work.
So I'm not seeing the point you are trying to making.
-
I'm not sure that model is failing Games Workshop... they were written up in the Economist as an example of a company doing well in the UK not too long ago...
-
Warhammer (GW) is struggling massively right now, as there steal their wallet and run them dry business model is falling them.
I've even hear talk of FFG thinking about buying out the company.
FFG mini games have all but died in my local area, as again they depend to much on having the newest minis.
Battletech and Alpha strike are still going strong here, and it not just the old guard as the other day I saw a couple of old-timers playing with a couple of 20 somethings and having a blast. If it has died in you area try to bring it back, but if you go in with the you want to play this out of date 35 year old game, I don't think it will work.
So I'm not seeing the point you are trying to making.
The point I'm making is that two examples don't make a statistical trend. Is it thriving where you live? That's awesome. I hope you continue to enjoy it. Is it dead here? Absolutely. And that's a shame. Meanwhile, FFG and X-Wing is constantly being played everywhere I look. The thing is I don't want to bring it back because I don't want to run Total Warfare. It's not my cup of tea. Nor is it apparently the cup of tea for the majority of people where I live, otherwise it'd still be going. People in my area should be able to experience BattleTech in a way that makes sense for them. The market will decide which one is more successful. It doesn't make one better than the other. It doesn't have to mean one is "obsolete". It's just different.
-
I recommend you look at those mech-scale rules again. There's no "Out of Range", which means units with Long range weapons are inescapable. If they're fast too, they win, since they can keep the range open.
If you look closely, there's no "Out of Range" at strict personal scale, either. There is, however, an assumption that people realize that there are distances beyond "Long Range".
-
Warhammer (GW) is struggling massively right now, as there steal their wallet and run them dry business model is falling them.
Games Workshop made over 74 million pounds in profit last year on the back of almost 230 million pounds (not dollars) in total revenue (https://s19485.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Annual-report-with-cover-final-v.pdf) (link is a pdf available as a source on wikipedia). They're not struggling at all.
-
Also I feel it fair to point out that a spreadsheet isn't strictly necessary for AToW. It really depends on how organized you are as an individual.
Especially if you use point buy instead of module.
I've yet to use a spreadsheet for any of my numerous unused AToW characters, and all have been built with life path modules. Admittedly, my method involves a lot of copying and pasting to show my work, and totaling spent/unspent XP by hand at every step. . . . (An example is attached.)
-
So I have just done a quick reading of the rules, and will be doing a more through read through latter but here are my first impressions. These are thoughts from someone with little RPG experience (some Star Wars D20, ~10 years ago).
The narrative passing system is interesting to me. It kinda reminds me what my friends and I used to do as we were eating fast food after a night at the bars, and creating ridiculous scenarios that just kept building off each other. "What if on the way home this happens" "And then this happened", "then you did this!" These scenarios were always hilarious (to us, in an altered state), but usually devolved pretty quickly into some NSFW craziness. I think I like the idea of the passing narrative system, however I'm a little worried it might take a special group to keep a game going for a months on end.
I like relative lack of GM work here, compared to say the Star Wars D20, as if I were to try and get a local game going I know i would have to GM it, and this system seems for friendly to a new GM. I have two folks who do DnD I might be able to talk into trying this. One is big into BT, and one I don't believe has played it. (I'll fix that at some point).
I like the lack of crunch, as I think it could lead to online games being playable. I lurk over on the FFG forums for the Star Wars game, and it seems to run pretty well as a PbP. And this seems even less rule intensive than that system (I do not currently own any of the FFG books). I have seen attempts at the Star Wars D20 system online, and it requires maps and a whole lot of stuff, that just doesn't work as well online without some major up front time investment.
Just some first thoughts.
*Edit* Also I really like the art that is in this.
-
The point I'm making is that two examples don't make a statistical trend. Is it thriving where you live? That's awesome. I hope you continue to enjoy it. Is it dead here? Absolutely. And that's a shame. Meanwhile, FFG and X-Wing is constantly being played everywhere I look. The thing is I don't want to bring it back because I don't want to run Total Warfare. It's not my cup of tea. Nor is it apparently the cup of tea for the majority of people where I live, otherwise it'd still be going. People in my area should be able to experience BattleTech in a way that makes sense for them. The market will decide which one is more successful. It doesn't make one better than the other. It doesn't have to mean one is "obsolete". It's just different.
But if Battletech is dead in your area, no one is experiencing it, so why would how they want to experience BattleTech matter.
I sorry to put it this way but CGL changing how battletech worked, is not going to change that or automatically revitalize the community in your area, but it could kill it in other areas. It takes work to build a gaming community and people passionate about the game. I know I've done it with friend in my area with L5R 4th. It does not just happen because a new version comes out.
-
If you look closely, there's no "Out of Range" at strict personal scale, either. There is, however, an assumption that people realize that there are distances beyond "Long Range".
Page 55 has a diagram with explicit "Out of Range" for Personal Scale, but not 'mech.
-
Games Workshop made over 74 million pounds in profit last year on the back of almost 230 million pounds (not dollars) in total revenue (https://s19485.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Annual-report-with-cover-final-v.pdf) (link is a pdf available as a source on wikipedia). They're not struggling at all.
Ok have not played warhammer for about 20 year now and was just going by what I was told from people that do.
-
Count me as one of the people who likes Destiny's simpler character creation. I had a lot of fun with a MechWarrior 3rd campaign a number of years ago, and enjoy building AToW characters for fun (though I've not had the opportunity to play any of them--my gaming group is now too busy with other things like families, jobs, and mortgages), but I'm more than happy to have a simpler way to build characters. My biggest problem with the system so far, to be honest, is trying to come up with enough Cues. . . .
And I've played BattleTech since around 1990 (I was a bit young and a bit distant from any gaming stores when the ads for "BattleDroids" were published in the comics I read in 1984), so I'm quite familiar with the pre-Clan era and basically every company which published BattleTech rules over the past thirty years. In my opinion, the setting can work with the Destiny ruleset as easily as it did with any other BattleTech/MechWarrior RPG iteration. The rules and level of crunch aren't nearly so important as capturing the feel of the setting, which has moved from dystopian to space opera at varying levels in the past 35 years. As long as the text and narrative structure can capture the feel of the Inner Sphere, Destiny should work well for roleplaying there.
-
Page 55 has a diagram with explicit "Out of Range" for Personal Scale, but not 'mech.
Only because that's as far as the diagram needs to go to include the full length of Long Range for 'Mech Scale as compared to Personal Scale. It corresponds exactly to the optional "Using Miniatures" box on the same page (page 65, rather than 55). There are two squares for each range listed in the box--the writers didn't feel it was necessary to point out that beyond seven squares was out of range, just like they didn't include an "Out of Range" line in the personal combat table on page 36, nor for that matter to include an "out of range" line in any iteration of ranges in any BattleTech product in the last 35 years.
-
But if Battletech is dead in your area, no one is experiencing it, so why would how they want to experience BattleTech matter.
I sorry to put it this way but CGL changing how battletech worked, is not going to change that or automatically revitalize the community in your area, but it could kill it in other areas. It takes work to build a gaming community and people passionate about the game. I know I've done it with friend in my area with L5R 4th. It does not just happen because a new version comes out.
Because I have people who WANT to experience BattleTech. Just not in its current form. And I'm eager to introduce them to it, but it also needs to be in a way that's fun for all of us.
If you're afraid your group is going to disolve just because a new form of the game emerges, I don't know what to tell you. If they're as passionate about it as you are, I don't feel like you have anything to worry about. You'll continue to keep playing the game you love for years to come. But those of us who want a change should be allowed to have it as well.
-
Ok have not played warhammer for about 20 year now and was just going by what I was told from people that do.
Also FFG isn’t its own company anymore and is owned by Asmodee
-
Because I have people who WANT to experience BattleTech. Just not in its current form. And I'm eager to introduce them to it, but it also needs to be in a way that's fun for all of us.
If you're afraid your group is going to disolve just because a new form of the game emerges, I don't know what to tell you. If they're as passionate about it as you are, I don't feel like you have anything to worry about. You'll continue to keep playing the game you love for years to come. But those of us who want a change should be allowed to have it as well.
First, You know that is not what I meant at all.
"but it could kill it in other areas" was not about me and my friends not playing any more it was about it being killed in the area for CGL.
And how do CGL decide which people to support, are the people in you area that are supporting them now more important that the one in my area that are?
Do they go outside the current community to all the shops and ask why people are not play the current version and what they want changed to support it or support the current community that just invested 2.5 million into the current game.
I'm not saying that you are totally wrong here, but how many people in your community can you guaranty will start buying Battletech products if they change it for them?
But lets say CGL needs 8,000 people buying most of their new products to stay in business, they have 11,000 and decide to overhaul the system for non-current players that claim they will play if they change the game, half of those like the new system and start buy it numbering around 1,000, but half the current players don't like the new system decide to stop buying new battletech and just play the old system they already have. So that leaves 5,500 old players and 1,000 new players for a total of 6,500 player. CGL just changed themselves out of business. (numbers just for demonstration and have no true meaning)
The points are,
1. Battletech popularity has been up and down may times over it 35 year and its still here with the same old system.
2. Change does not always guarantee success.
3. People claiming that they would play this if they change that is sometimes just talk.
4. It's not wise to change things when you on an upwards swing in business, but don't wait till you hit the bottom either.
-
How do we feel about the equipment list?
I’m kind of scratching my head over the fact that there are so many different variations of melee weapons, but a relatively small collection of firearms. Do we really need rules for a scimitar? Especially if we don’t have a stat line for an assault rifle?
I’d also like to see the non-weapon equipment list given a little more depth.
-
Also FFG isn’t its own company anymore and is owned by Asmodee
I know that but don't see why it's important as even under Asmodee FFG bought the L5R IP off AEG not Asmodee.
Normally, in these umbrella type setups the parent company leaves the sub-companies to run themselves.
-
First, You know that is not what I meant at all.
"but it could kill it in other areas" was not about me and my friends not playing any more it was about it being killed in the area for CGL.
And how do CGL decide which people to support, are the people in you area that are supporting them now more important that the one in my area that are?
Do they go outside the current community to all the shops and ask why people are not play the current version and what they want changed to support it or support the current community that just invested 2.5 million into the current game.
I'm not saying that you are totally wrong here, but how many people in your community can you guaranty will start buying Battletech products if they change it for them?
But lets say CGL needs 8,000 people buying most of their new products to stay in business, they have 11,000 and decide to overhaul the system for non-current players that claim they will play if they change the game, half of those like the new system and start buy it numbering around 1,000, but half the current players don't like the new system decide to stop buying new battletech and just play the old system they already have. So that leaves 5,500 old players and 1,000 new players for a total of 6,500 player. CGL just changed themselves out of business. (numbers just for demonstration and have not true meaning)
The points are,
1. Battletech popularity has been up and down may times over it 35 year and its still here with the same old system.
2. Change does not always guarantee success.
3. People claiming that they would play this if they change that is sometimes just talk.
4. It's not wise to change things when you on an upwards swing in business, but don't wait till you hit the bottom either.
That all comes down to speculating about information we don't really have access to. I'd like to think CGL is smart enough about running a business that they know what they're getting into. If they didn't feel like there was a market for it, they wouldn't be doing it.
As for how CGL decides who to support? Whichever way the market takes them. It's as simple as that.
Also, they don't have to go around to shops to ask people why they're not playing. They can look at market trends and all the feedback on various forums and reddits all over the internet. The information for them is there to make smart decisions.
-
That all comes down to speculating about information we don't really have access to. I'd like to think CGL is smart enough about running a business that they know what they're getting into. If they didn't feel like there was a market for it, they wouldn't be doing it.
As for how CGL decides who to support? Whichever way the market takes them. It's as simple as that.
Also, they don't have to go around to shops to ask people why they're not playing. They can look at market trends and all the feedback on various forums and reddits all over the internet. The information for them is there to make smart decisions.
And as you say we don't have the data so maybe they have looked into it and found that the current system gives them the best bang for the buck. As we don't have the market data on hand, neither you or I is qualified to make the decision that the need to change or stay the same. For all we know the current game is doing fine.
I do know that CGL stated during the AMA 2 that A game of armored combat is on it 4th-5th reprinting at this time and that the current system seems to be selling well, not sure if this is sustainable or if they are making the money they need to keep going off it, but it would indicate that the current system still has a strong market from the outside looking in.
-
And as you say we don't have the data so maybe they have looked into it and found that the current system gives them the best bang for the buck. As we don't have the market data on hand, neither you or I is qualified to make the decision that the need to change or stay the same. For all we know the current game is doing fine.
I do know that CGL stated during the AMA 2 that A game of armored combat is on it 4th-5th reprinting at this time that the current system seems to be selling well, not sure if this is sustainable or if they are making the money they need to keep going off it, but it would indicate that the current system sill has a strong market from the outside.
For sure. I think it's selling well enough to sustain itself. But sustaining itself and being successful enough to really grow the game are two very different things. Eventually they'll hit peak saturation with the core box set, and then it's going to depend on how well miniatures sell. And that's where games like X-Wing end up thriving. I think TW's continued success will boil down to how willing people are to buy frequent miniature packs over continuing to use the same collection they've been using over the last 30 years.
I think it's important to reiterate that the game literally hasn't changed in 13 years, and likely isn't in the near future with the new Total Warfare reprints. They've put out some cool Historicals and have expanded the lore over the years, but the game itself? Pretty much nothing has come out to really impact Total Warfare itself. In my opinion, that means if CGL wanted to shift resources to something new, literally nothing changes. They can continue to reprint the current set of rules for those who want to play it, and Total Warfare goes into legacy support. There's very little they'd have to do to keep it going in its current state.
Even with the new Clan Invasion set, the most exciting thing about it is arguably the new miniature sculpts. Those could be backwards and forwards compatible to a new system if they wanted it to be. Otherwise, it's still the same game we've always been playing, just repackaged. And with Print on Demand, Total Warfare doesn't need to completely go away if they wanted to do something new. And if whatever new thing they try ends up failing, they at least still have Total Warfare to fall back on.
I think ultimately though, we're just just going to have to wait and see. All this boils down to it's worth giving a shot and seeing where it goes, and if it fails, it's likely not the end of the world either.
-
So I am still doing an in depth read of the rules but here are my thoughts so far.
Character creation - hits some nostalgia and familiarity buttons while being relatively simple. Very easy to tweak and customize. I tried my hand at putting together a MAD-9S for a Jihad character and it worked fine. Even tried a Savage Wolf A, what I went with for ATMs would need some play testing but the framework was easy to get it going.
Actual use - I doubt I will actually play the game, but I will use it to create TW and AS characters. I am already eyeing the mech combat rules as a means to provide some game feel to some fan-fiction without breaking out full on TW. Add that battletech flavor of randomness every once in a while and otherwise make sure things stay reasonable.
Hybrid potential - As others have mentioned the mech combat rules have me thinking of ways to hang it on AS and get something halfway between TW and AS.
I had some words weighing in on the success of the kickstarter, core community, and reluctance to change. Rather than derail a MWD thread I will try and distill, we can discuss in another thread if people find it interesting.
I think the success of the kickstarter may have more to do with models, read, sweet, sweet 'mechs than rulesets. In fact taking the GW example, their business model is really, well... models. I think there is room for frank discussions on what a profitable business model for battletech might look like, what will grab the most newcomers.
-
Hybrid potential - As others have mentioned the mech combat rules have me thinking of ways to hang it on AS and get something halfway between TW and AS.
That was my first thought as well seeing the Mech Combat rules. I think it'd be really easy to use Alpha Strike movement and ranges and combine them with the MWD damage and combat system. I'm kinda eager to try this actually and have gotten at least one person on board to experiment with it with me in the near future. Alpha Strike I kinda felt lost a little too much by getting rid of hit locations and individual weapons. This would make the perfect blend.
Also, the BattleTech/Alpha Strike character sheets are fantastic. I'm really torn between whether or not I'd use them over the Destiny sheets if I were to run a campaign, just because it'd be so much easier to integrate if I did run a hybrid MWD/Alpha Strike campaign.
-
I like the idea of abstract combat, but I also like the idea of using this system with a hex map without using Total Warfare. Might be worth giving it a shot using Destiny conversion, but sticking with Alpha Strike movement and range. Or just using Destiny on a hex map. No idea what would work better.
-
Running Destiny tomorrow night with one of my regular groups. Never run a game that has this shared narrative. I couldn't tell from reading the rules how much of the mission briefing is intended to be shared with players. Do they get the whole brief and then we get to explore how they move through the scenes? Or are cues and scenes for game masters only?
-
Games Workshop made over 74 million pounds in profit last year on the back of almost 230 million pounds (not dollars) in total revenue (https://s19485.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Annual-report-with-cover-final-v.pdf) (link is a pdf available as a source on wikipedia). They're not struggling at all.
Thanks for pulling this out of the web, before I had to. No, GW is not struggling, not by a long shot. What they realized, however, was that their old business model was failing and they turned their ship around and revamped most of their product line. They even broke with former company rules like 1) the universes are stagnant or 2) small systems get no support after release.
Today, they're throwing board games into the market to support their miniature wargames and reanimate older, smaller games to mutually support Warhammer 40k and Warhammer Fantasy. I haven't touched GW products in a long time, but that revival was some awesome management turnaround. Of course, it's easier to do that with their cash and it's not a blueprint for a much smaller company like CGL, but you still have to nod at GW for succeeding so much. 8)
-
How do we feel about the equipment list?
I’m kind of scratching my head over the fact that there are so many different variations of melee weapons, but a relatively small collection of firearms. Do we really need rules for a scimitar? Especially if we don’t have a stat line for an assault rifle?
I’d also like to see the non-weapon equipment list given a little more depth.
Yeah, that strikes me as odd, too. I also found it slightly troubling that each of the four Life Modules supposedly adds something to the character, but on p. 152 none of the Factions seem to contribute to the characters. Now, I would be fine with just one point in Protocol (maybe add specialties per Faction here?), but I think that some cultural differences could be made for the 3025 era as well as for later eras.
-
As for how CGL decides who to support? Whichever way the market takes them. It's as simple as that.
This, exactly this. Even, if they decide to kill new products for TW, AS and AtoW and make MWD the new RPG and its miniature rules their new flagship wargame, I would be okay with that. First of all, I would have to be, it's not my decision. And second of all, I want a fully supported and functional BTU wargame. And after 35 years, I can play the heck out of BatteTech using the current line of books. As long as they are available as PDF or (better) POD, this can last until 3025 and back.
There will be some change, it's inevitable, and better it's well managed and wanted change (by CGL) than an implosion and another shattering of the IP.
CGL: You got the cash now, go make it count.
-
Detective Work: Investigation
Fixing: Technician
Intrusion: Depends on your approach, could be any one of several skills
Medicine: MedTech
Social Engineering: Depends on your approach, can include Acting, Intimidation, Protocol, Disguise, Negotiation
Technology: Technician
Transportation: Piloting
The skill descriptions pretty much cover almost everything, the only thing I see missing is something that's explicitly related to picking locks. Electronic locks are covered by Computers, mechanical locks are another thing.
First of all I was pulling those terms from a list of skill catagories that every party should be able to cover, and in some cases each character should cover. Next, Fixing in this case means working with or being a fixer or fence. Intrusion looks to be up to 8 skills, several of which every party member should have. Transportation also covers driving a civilian vehicle, which isn't covered by the skills as they stand, so if your players get into a car case, they're going to crash in short order.
-
Only because that's as far as the diagram needs to go to include the full length of Long Range for 'Mech Scale as compared to Personal Scale. It corresponds exactly to the optional "Using Miniatures" box on the same page (page 65, rather than 55). There are two squares for each range listed in the box--the writers didn't feel it was necessary to point out that beyond seven squares was out of range, just like they didn't include an "Out of Range" line in the personal combat table on page 36, nor for that matter to include an "out of range" line in any iteration of ranges in any BattleTech product in the last 35 years.
Sorry for the typo, page 65 is the correct page number for the diagram. I believe page 65 overrides page 36's lack of "out of range" (or rather, page 38's, where is says 2+ is "Far"). For 'mech scale, the problem is on page 42 where they list the movement costs of moving between ranges, but provide no way to move out of range. Four movement points would be reasonable.
-
Does anyone else find it incredibly bizarre that Perception is Int+Wil, unless you have the Perception skill, in which case its Int+Perception?
-
Sorry for the typo, page 65 is the correct page number for the diagram. I believe page 65 overrides page 36's lack of "out of range" (or rather, page 38's, where is says 2+ is "Far"). For 'mech scale, the problem is on page 42 where they list the movement costs of moving between ranges, but provide no way to move out of range. Four movement points would be reasonable.
Page 65 is the diagram for using miniatures to determine range. The 'Mech-scale chart stops at Long Range at seven hexes/squares between attacker and target. The only reason the Personal-Scale chart goes past three hexes/squares between is to illustrate the comparison between Personal Scale and 'Mech Scale. Once you've got eight hexes between you and your target, you're out of range.
If you can point me to any BattleTech range chart other than the comparative 'Mech-Scale/Personal Scale one in MWD which includes an "Out of Range" bracket, I'll be quite surprised.
-
Stumbled across this as well. I would think it's always "the higher of the two". The rules, as presented, allows for decent Perception rolls without the skill, though, but the skill adds certain boni:
1) Buying the Perception skill will make it easier for you to raise your Skill Bonus.
2) The GM can rule that rolls above average difficulty (or was it only 'hard' / 4d6?) cannot be attempted without a skill value.
But yes, it's odd, very odd.
-
I do think that Mechwarrior Destiny is a step in the right direction.
-
Well, submitted two bits of errata, I helped.
-
Hello,
Any chance to get form fillable character sheets, along with specific hardware sheets for each item including battle armor?
-
Ok still digesting this, but I like what I see.
The narrative style is different, and does 'cater to a certain crowd' kind of like any other RPG. It isn't going to be for everyone, but for my Pathfinder peers, it should work. We're all pretty RP heavy. Now I just need to find time to run a session.
As to the 'use a point to bypass an obstacle' that's still resource management. Still using a resource to complete a mission. And it also only worked for one PC mind you.
I don't see that as an issue, players do that all the time in other games.
Pathfinder Society "Ok, I want to burn a re-roll"
ATOW "I'm burning some edge."
Within the limits of 'plot twists' I can see it making for a challenging game.
Maurry the Mechwarrior has used Stealth, PErception, and Technician to get into the bay and is about to steal the prototype 'Mech. He knows his buddies are giving him cover fire, but they've been having to soak a lot of damage with Plot points so the GM has a pool.
Maurry's player "Ok, I slide into the 'Mech's seat. Plug my Neurohelmet in and rock this thing."
GM *spends a plot point* The system is password protected.
Carrie the ComStar Adept is down shooting with the others. So she can't help on her turn. Maury doesn't have computer skills. So he can (maybe) try an untrained roll, but knows the odds are against him.
Maurry's player "I want to spend a plot point, the test pilot writes his password on a post-it on the monitor, so I can log it in."
If I'm the GM, I smile and let him do it.
I like this system. IT allows me to throw obstacles and the other players to get around them.
-
is there a discord server for MW: Destiny? My online rp group and I will be running a few test sessions to see how to works out.
-
is there a discord server for MW: Destiny? My online rp group and I will be running a few test sessions to see how to works out.
Not sure but you could check the KS Discord, in on the KS site.
-
I also found it slightly troubling that each of the four Life Modules supposedly adds something to the character, but on p. 152 none of the Factions seem to contribute to the characters. Now, I would be fine with just one point in Protocol (maybe add specialties per Faction here?), but I think that some cultural differences could be made for the 3025 era as well as for later eras.
That's a really good point, a little more faction flavor would be great. I'd also like to see a mech added for each faction (right now, I think the only ones with a faction tag are the Valk, Commando, and Dragon). You know, just so new players have an idea of where to start. I imagine that could be addressed with more life paths in an Inner Sphere sourcebook, but it would be nice to see something in the core rules.
I will say, the more time I go back to the book, the less I like the organization. The example characters splitting the character creation rules in half is really clumsy.
I know some people are frustrated with the relatively short list of skills, but I think I prefer that to a "specific skill for every situation" type of architecture. Especially since the skills we do have are awfully large umbrellas.
I definitely do not like the lack of explicit ranges for personal combat. Even just providing the suggested ranges in a sidebar rather than the easy-to-miss paragraph would be an improvement, IMO.
-
I know some people are frustrated with the relatively short list of skills, but I think I prefer that to a "specific skill for every situation" type of architecture. Especially since the skills we do have are awfully large umbrellas.
That, and if it's anything like the list of traits, it looks like they're encouraging groups to make up their own to supplement.
The ranges is something I'd like put back in, just as "Close"-"near"-Far" is an invitation to arguments.
-
The ranges is something I'd like put back in, just as "Close"-"near"-Far" is an invitation to arguments.
(http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/gEfrwXsPRk14Q/giphy.gif)
-
Are the skill tests way too random?
"Okay, you want to hack the mech's computer in the middle of the night while everyone else is asleep with no distractions? Sure, that's average difficulty." <rolls 3d6> "Oh, your target number is 18.
"Okay, you want to hack the mech's computer in the middle of the day, while a tech is pounding on the hatch, the alarms are going off, security is on its way, and you're pretty sure the Mech in the bay next to your is powered up since you can see the hands flexing, ready to rip you out of this mech. I'm going to say hard difficulty. <rolls 4d6> "Oh, your target number is...4."
I mean, conditional modifiers can bump it up to..7. yay?
-
(http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/gEfrwXsPRk14Q/giphy.gif)
Well played, good sir, well played 8) :thumbsup:
-
while talking skills, what kind of skill would you use to summon Cthulhu?
Animal handling might be a bit degrading, Leadership a bit presumptuous
I think Negotiation might be the best match, fits right in with bargaining and contracts. :)
-
while talking skills, what kind of skill would you use to summon Cthulhu?
Probably you'd need Knowledge (Arcane Language), Knowledge (Necronomocon) and the "utterly, totally irredeemably bonkers" negative trait ;D
-
Probably you'd need Knowledge (Arcane Language), Knowledge (Necronomocon) and the "utterly, totally irredeemably bonkers" negative trait ;D
on introspection, the last part should be a default pick. ;)
-
Are the skill tests way too random?
"Okay, you want to hack the mech's computer in the middle of the night while everyone else is asleep with no distractions? Sure, that's average difficulty." <rolls 3d6> "Oh, your target number is 18.
"Okay, you want to hack the mech's computer in the middle of the day, while a tech is pounding on the hatch, the alarms are going off, security is on its way, and you're pretty sure the Mech in the bay next to your is powered up since you can see the hands flexing, ready to rip you out of this mech. I'm going to say hard difficulty. <rolls 4d6> "Oh, your target number is...4."
I mean, conditional modifiers can bump it up to..7. yay?
That is an odd way to assign a difficulty threshold. I'm definitely willing to give it a try, but I don't see the benefit over using a traditional scale.
-
That's a really good point, a little more faction flavor would be great. I'd also like to see a mech added for each faction (right now, I think the only ones with a faction tag are the Valk, Commando, and Dragon). You know, just so new players have an idea of where to start. I imagine that could be addressed with more life paths in an Inner Sphere sourcebook, but it would be nice to see something in the core rules.
Thanks, I was thinking something similar. I also think, the Inner Spere 3025 sourcebook should not be a thing, it should be this book for 3025 and that's it. Rather cut out the huge Clan section and make it a Clan Invasion (including 3050 IS) sourcebook that hits the streets one months after the MW:D core rules.
I will say, the more time I go back to the book, the less I like the organization. The example characters splitting the character creation rules in half is really clumsy.
Yes, it is very clumsy. Organisation is key in a new book, this needs to be re-arranged. And while at it, I would like to see 1-2 pages on how to run scenarios and campaigns, i. e. how to combine Mission Briefings. Because in no way are 1-4 scenes a whole adventure, more like a chapter of it. Most Mission Briefings will be over in 1-3 hours. That's barely a full session.
I know some people are frustrated with the relatively short list of skills, but I think I prefer that to a "specific skill for every situation" type of architecture. Especially since the skills we do have are awfully large umbrellas.
Yes, skills are fine IMHO. The only suggestion would be "specialisations" as an option for certain skills, such as "Protocol (Faction)". And "Language", languages should be a thing, they add flavor, too. Maybe that's what "Life Module: Faction" adds?
-
That is an odd way to assign a difficulty threshold. I'm definitely willing to give it a try, but I don't see the benefit over using a traditional scale.
Like "3.5 per die = 7/11/14?"
Or quasi-fixed as in "4/7/11 +1d6?"
-
When you choose a faction, and provide a backstory, I don't think it's required to have skill specializations. If you have "Protocol" or "Streetwise" and you're a merc from the Rasalhauge province, it should be enough.
-
Ooops. There seems to be a major flaw.
You can destroy a fighter's bomb through a critical hit, but as far as I can tell, you can't actually bomb. Or Strike/Strafe.
I suppose these could all be fluffed as simple attacks with your Primary and other Weapon groups, but it seems odd for the critical to be there (none of the record sheets I've looked over seem to have spots for bombs)
-
Page 65 is the diagram for using miniatures to determine range. The 'Mech-scale chart stops at Long Range at seven hexes/squares between attacker and target. The only reason the Personal-Scale chart goes past three hexes/squares between is to illustrate the comparison between Personal Scale and 'Mech Scale. Once you've got eight hexes between you and your target, you're out of range.
If you can point me to any BattleTech range chart other than the comparative 'Mech-Scale/Personal Scale one in MWD which includes an "Out of Range" bracket, I'll be quite surprised.
Ok, with page 42 as a reference, please tell me how you move out of Long Range (and not to Medium) without "Withdrawing"...
-
This is the latest errata report I've submitted. Its probably much too late, but I figured I could try.
This is an RPG, there's bound to be conflict, but the descriptions of the various Houses and factions come across as bland and upbeat. This is the end of the Third Succession War, when Life is Cheap, BattleMechs aren't. There's little to no mention of things like the Skye Separatists, the power struggle between the various Davion March Lords, the poverty of the average Liao/Kurita commoner, etc. Its a very boring Inner Sphere that's being described to a new player.
That's in relation to the introduction to the Houses in the beginning of the books that come across as...well, glowing might be too nice of a word for it.
-
Ok, with page 42 as a reference, please tell me how you move out of Long Range (and not to Medium) without "Withdrawing"...
Tbh if you're trying to move beyond long range to avoid enemy fire I feel like it's a pretty accurate description to call that withdrawing.
-
And I "un-withdraw" how exactly? There are plenty of occasions to be out of "Long" range then close again.
-
Tbh if you're trying to move beyond long range to avoid enemy fire I feel like it's a pretty accurate description to call that withdrawing.
I dunno. I can see the point of attempting to get out of range while waiting for something to happen, without fully leaving combat.
-
And I "un-withdraw" how exactly? There are plenty of occasions to be out of "Long" range then close again.
In a tactical game, yes. In a narrative game, not so much.
-
Maelwys hit the narrative angle to my question on the head.
-
I mean, lets say you've got a split party going. 3 members of your group is inside a bunker on an Davion military base, recovering proof that Galen Cox was the one that gave Atomic Annie the codes to the nukes she stole during the FedCom Civil War. The other member of the lance is outside in his Stealth. The plan is for him to cover the retreat of the other three members when they make their escape in a Pegasus hovercraft.
Oh no! The badguys have powered up a Sagittaire. The guy in the Stealth doesn't really want to deal with it for the next 3 minutes while the rest of the group goes through files showing that Cox was the one that paid to blow up the Archon. Is there a way for him to get out of range of the Sagittaire, but not far enough away that he can't get back to distract the enemy Mech when its time to get the Pegasus out with the important info?
I suppose it could just be handle narratively, "I get my Mech far far away!" but it seems clunky. Then again, it could be the system.
-
Maelwys hit the narrative angle to my question on the head.
It's a one-sentence description of a tactical game maneuver, not a narrative game maneuver. The narrative version is more like "I'm going to duck and weave to avoid his fire until there's an opening".
-
To which the GM responds "Not if you're within range of the enemy's LRM-5, you're not. They get a shot."
-
I mean, lets say you've got a split party going. 3 members of your group is inside a bunker on an Davion military base, recovering proof that Galen Cox was the one that gave Atomic Annie the codes to the nukes she stole during the FedCom Civil War. The other member of the lance is outside in his Stealth. The plan is for him to cover the retreat of the other three members when they make their escape in a Pegasus hovercraft.
Oh no! The badguys have powered up a Sagittaire. The guy in the Stealth doesn't really want to deal with it for the next 3 minutes while the rest of the group goes through files showing that Cox was the one that paid to blow up the Archon. Is there a way for him to get out of range of the Sagittaire, but not far enough away that he can't get back to distract the enemy Mech when its time to get the Pegasus out with the important info?
I suppose it could just be handle narratively, "I get my Mech far far away!" but it seems clunky. Then again, it could be the system.
The Stealth pilot could say something like "I'm going to duck behind the bunker and try not to be noticed by the Sagittaire until I get the signal that my friends are on their way".
-
What, Phantom 'Mech ability? ???
-
To which the GM responds "Not if you're within range of the enemy's LRM-5, you're not. They get a shot."
I never said anything about their not getting a shot. The idea is to make myself more difficult to hit in a narrative way.
-
Then you're not "out of range"...
-
What, Phantom 'Mech ability? ???
Not so dramatic as that, but Phantom 'Mech is a narrative sort of ability.
-
Then you're not "out of range"...
The goal is to not get hit. In a tactical game, you move out of range. In a narrative one, you dodge. Same idea, different mechanic.
-
Except that one always works, and the other only works right up until the enemy makes their to-hit roll.
-
And more importantly, the tactic of "being out of range" works against units without Long Range weapons, but not against those with them. It's an "always/never" problem that doesn't have to exist.
-
As to the 'use a point to bypass an obstacle' that's still resource management. Still using a resource to complete a mission. And it also only worked for one PC mind you.
Can you point me to where this is RAW? I'm trying to get a handle on the rules myself, but the way I read the Plot Points and spending Edge sections leads me to believe you can't just burn a Plot Point to skip a test. I'll admit to not having finished my read through yet, though, and maybe I haven't seen this specific rule.
-
Except that one always works, and the other only works right up until the enemy makes their to-hit roll.
In a tactical game, yes. In a narrative setting, one ends the combat encounter while the other eventually gives you a chance to shoot back.
-
And what is the deal with the faction "Logos" ? It looks like they're made out of cheap thin clear plastic. You get these standard pieces of artwork that are in some cases iconic (The cover to En Garde is in there), and then you get this..cheap looking 3D thing for the House logos.
-
In a tactical game, yes. In a narrative setting, one ends the combat encounter while the other eventually gives you a chance to shoot back.
But if they don't have Long range weapons, it totally works in the rules as written. They CAN'T shoot you if you're at Long and their weapons don't reach that far...
-
But if they don't have Long range weapons, it totally works in the rules as written. They CAN'T shoot you if you're at Long and their weapons don't reach that far...
Which is why you then move in to engage them. Ask any Hollywood fight choreographer. (Only being slightly facetious here. . . .)
-
As anything with at least an LRM-5, I'm totally staying out of range of any AC/20 until it's dead. It's not like this game tracks ammo...
-
I don't think it would hurt to track ammo, but no one complains about that in Alpha Strike, so who knows.
But I mean... if abstract 'Mech combat is a problem just use TW or find a way to use Alpha Strike. You could track ammo, add in Alpha Strike movement/mechanics, and be done with it.
If anyone working on Destiny is looking at anything I say in this thread, please keep on the path and keep things as vague as possible. It's refreshing to see a lack of detail for the sake of smooth gameplay.
-
Tracking ammo would probably be beyond the scope of the Equipment section.
-
If anyone working on Destiny is looking at anything I say in this thread, please keep on the path and keep things as vague as possible. It's refreshing to see a lack of detail for the sake of smooth gameplay.
I 100% agree with that. It's kinda fun being given a foundation and then letting the individual players and GMs sorta build off of it the way they want to like what's being discussed here. 90% of a GM's job is to treat the rules as guidelines rather than law and sorta come up with answers to unique situations on the fly. No amount of rulemaking is going to cover every single situation that comes up. Build the basics and leave the rest of the power in the hands of the GM.
-
OH. I also second/third/fourth the need for the different factions to have bonuses and flavor attached to them as well. Anything from languages, to deeper stuff like the fact that a Taurien might not get along with a Davion and there are rivalries that might spark tension and narrative opportunity between players as well.
-
OH. I also second/third/fourth the need for the different factions to have bonuses and flavor attached to them as well. Anything from languages, to deeper stuff like the fact that a Taurien might not get along with a Davion and there are rivalries that might spark tension and narrative opportunity between players as well.
Maybe as bonus' on Attributes
Steiner: +1 CHA, -1 WIL
Kurita: +1 STR, -1 CHA
Davion: +1 INT, -1 STR
Liao: +1 REF, -1 INT
Marik: +1 WIL, -1 RFL
We can discuss this all day, but it would make some interesting results.
-
After reading over MWD serval times I would like to see a YouTube video of someone that understands the cue system giving it a go with a group of players. My experience with RPGs has been limited to a few Mechwarrior games up to version 2 and D&D which I have just got back into. Now one of our regular flat out refuses to play ( more because he thinks I betrayed him in our last MW2 by being a wolf net operative and didn’t tell him and he was our CO. Although the GM thought it was a great concept) But back to the point I have 4 PCs that what to give it a go and I think a few YouTube videos would help sell the idea to both new and old players.
-
And I "un-withdraw" how exactly? There are plenty of occasions to be out of "Long" range then close again.
Alternately, you say to the GM (or as part of the joint narrative) "I'm going to move to out of the enemy range and try and stay there, but close enough to be seen as a threat" and presumably roll off to see who's better at combat manoeuvring.
-
And what is the deal with the faction "Logos" ? It looks like they're made out of cheap thin clear plastic. You get these standard pieces of artwork that are in some cases iconic (The cover to En Garde is in there), and then you get this..cheap looking 3D thing for the House logos.
I *think* those logos might be the art from the Kickstarter faction dice.
-
*snip*
90% of a GM's job is to treat the rules as guidelines rather than law and sorta come up with answers to unique situations on the fly.
*snip*
Alternately, you say to the GM (or as part of the joint narrative) "I'm going to move to out of the enemy range and try and stay there, but close enough to be seen as a threat" and presumably roll off to see who's better at combat maneuvering.
As I've been saying, there's an actual rule on moving between Medium and Long range on page 42, and NO rule for maneuvering beyond Long without withdrawing. For the sake of consistency, this should be corrected. Or are we really all accepting that units with Long range weapons are that much superior to ones without? All it would take is a single line added to the table on page 42, and maybe a tweak to the "Withdrawing" rules to permit disengagement without taking damage.
-
I agree with Daryk. If there are rules for moving between ranges, there should be a rule for moving out of range. In theory, you could handwave a rule that any unit already at long range can expend X movement to leave long range, but this really highlights the problem with vague rules for combat.
A rules-lite roleplaying system works fine (IMO). You don’t need a skill for every action or a rule for every interaction. Destiny may not have a specific skill for acting in an off-broadway play, but you can pretty reasonably use Charisma plus something else. The sample characters in the book are short, but they provide all of the detail I need to get a feel for how these people are supposed to act.
Combat is another story, though. Even as a theater of the mind game, not explicitly defining ranges or movement in quantitative measurements opens up the door to a metric ton of confusion and arguments. The Beta lays the groundwork for a really good, mini-Battletech. The armor and damage are already reduced and simplified. If they re-worked the movement and combat ranges (both character and mech) into those same simplified statistics instead of simplified suggestions of statistics, I think the combat would be much more solid.
-
Alternately, you say to the GM (or as part of the joint narrative) "I'm going to move to out of the enemy range and try and stay there, but close enough to be seen as a threat" and presumably roll off to see who's better at combat manoeuvring.
Or you could do that. What a perfectly sensible and reasonable response. (Wish I'd thought of it.)
-
I agree with Daryk. If there are rules for moving between ranges, there should be a rule for moving out of range. In theory, you could handwave a rule that any unit already at long range can expend X movement to leave long range, but this really highlights the problem with vague rules for combat.
A rules-lite roleplaying system works fine (IMO). You don’t need a skill for every action or a rule for every interaction. Destiny may not have a specific skill for acting in an off-broadway play, but you can pretty reasonably use Charisma plus something else. The sample characters in the book are short, but they provide all of the detail I need to get a feel for how these people are supposed to act.
Combat is another story, though. Even as a theater of the mind game, not explicitly defining ranges or movement in quantitative measurements opens up the door to a metric ton of confusion and arguments. The Beta lays the groundwork for a really good, mini-Battletech. The armor and damage are already reduced and simplified. If they re-worked the movement and combat ranges (both character and mech) into those same simplified statistics instead of simplified suggestions of statistics, I think the combat would be much more solid.
To give an example, a Locust pilot can say "I use my 'Mech's Lightning Fast Tag to stay just outside the Archer's range"; if his Piloting roll succeeds, he does it. Simple. that's what the Cue System is for. One doesn't need explicit ranges if one is thinking cinematically, just the right descriptions.
By the way, the rule you're looking for to stay just out of range is covered on page 33, under the heading "Moving the Story Forward". Those two paragraphs give you the freedom to say "I'll keep just out of range", and the GM the freedom to determine the consequences.
-
I find it ironic that BattleTech fans want rules for being creative.
It's like, we've been playing a rules heavy game that covers just about every detail of combat that when we're given creative freedom, we panic.
-
As I've been saying, there's an actual rule on moving between Medium and Long range on page 42, and NO rule for maneuvering beyond Long without withdrawing. For the sake of consistency, this should be corrected. Or are we really all accepting that units with Long range weapons are that much superior to ones without? All it would take is a single line added to the table on page 42, and maybe a tweak to the "Withdrawing" rules to permit disengagement without taking damage.
I agree with Daryk. If there are rules for moving between ranges, there should be a rule for moving out of range. In theory, you could handwave a rule that any unit already at long range can expend X movement to leave long range, but this really highlights the problem with vague rules for combat.
Now, I've only glanced through the rulebook so far, but I'm of the opinion that while a rule like that is nice to have in order to prevent arguments, if it's not there then rolling some dice to resolve the conflict should be the done thing.
-
To give an example, a Locust pilot can say "I use my 'Mech's Lightning Fast Tag to stay just outside the Archer's range"; if his Piloting roll succeeds, he does it. Simple. that's what the Cue System is for. One doesn't need explicit ranges if one is thinking cinematically, just the right descriptions.
By the way, the rule you're looking for to stay just out of range is covered on page 33, under the heading "Moving the Story Forward". Those two paragraphs give you the freedom to say "I'll keep just out of range", and the GM the freedom to determine the consequences.
And I think that's a really good solution. I'm just worried that there is a lot of straddling between intentionally vague rules that allow for maximum flexibility and a handful of specific quantitative statistics. Either option is a good option, and I'm totally fine with theater of the mind battletech, but trying to blend the two may not be as seamless.
Again, though, this may come back around to the organization of the rulebook. There are a lot of important bits that seem to get lost in big blocks of text or scattered sections.
-
If anyone working on Destiny is looking at anything I say in this thread, please keep on the path and keep things as vague as possible. It's refreshing to see a lack of detail for the sake of smooth gameplay.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Keep it up CGL.
-
To give an example, a Locust pilot can say "I use my 'Mech's Lightning Fast Tag to stay just outside the Archer's range"; if his Piloting roll succeeds, he does it. Simple. that's what the Cue System is for. One doesn't need explicit ranges if one is thinking cinematically, just the right descriptions.
By the way, the rule you're looking for to stay just out of range is covered on page 33, under the heading "Moving the Story Forward". Those two paragraphs give you the freedom to say "I'll keep just out of range", and the GM the freedom to determine the consequences.
That invites a different answer every single time this very common situation comes up. And again, dooms every 'mech without a Long range weapon facing a faster (or even just as fast) opponent with one. That way lies madness... madness, I say!
-
Can you point me to where this is RAW? I'm trying to get a handle on the rules myself, but the way I read the Plot Points and spending Edge sections leads me to believe you can't just burn a Plot Point to skip a test. I'll admit to not having finished my read through yet, though, and maybe I haven't seen this specific rule.
Page 33
"In gameplay, Plot Points may be used in many ways. They are
used to interrupt or alter another player’s Narration—a method of
adding a twist to the game. They can also be used to change player
turn order, alter a die roll, or gain back a point of Physical or Fatigue
damage. The ways players utilize Plot Points are only limited by how
creative they want to be."
Emphasis mine. SO if (to use the OP's example) a room full of gas was intended to be bypassed by Reflex + Athletics (as a GM I'd say Reflex or Strength, one relying on being nimble to get around anything in the room, Strength to represent "Moving quickly, while holding my breath) and a player burns a plot point to 'produce a gas mask they forgot they were carrying' great! He's used a plot point he might have used to augment his die roll, or heal the damage from the gas, etc etc.
In my example the GM spends a plot point for a plot twist (the battlemech's computer is encrypted) It seems fair then to allow the player to use a plot point to find the password written down.
Also, remember, when a player uses a plot point, the GM gains one. So in both examples, the player is not just 'cancelling out' a twist or obstacle, he's also refreshing the GM's resources to shake things up, and depleting his own.
-
Does anyone else think that Body would be better than Strength for the stat? Body seems like a better catchall for what the attribute does than just Strength?
-
Yes, and I also thought it was odd WIL wasn't folded into INT...
-
I'd rather Intelligence not be rolled into Will, otherwise you have dumb as a stump characters who have will to resist, or Incrdibly Intelligent people who can resist anything.
Intelligence and Will separate allows for Sherlock Holmes and his Heroin Addiction.
-
Addiction is a negative trait, not a stat. As it is, WIL only supports two skills (which can be argued to be INT skills anyway) and the Fatigue monitor. Since they did away with BOD, it symmetry would suggest doing away with one of the mental stats too.
-
Looking over equipment, I found a few more things that need Clarification.
Gyrojet weapons are not listed as Ballistic. Not sure if this is intended (making Gyrojet weapons effective against all armors) or an oversight.
Under Flechette weapons, a single * was used for the effect of both Needlers and shotguns. It would be much better to use ** for shotguns to avoid confusion.
Grenades don't list a damage type, instead being broken up by High Explosive and Anti-Personal (which, given the abstract nature of the system is meaningless besides the difference in damage). It would be much better to list High Explosive (B) and Incendiary (E) types, perhaps giving the HE version the higher damage value to compensate for the more common Ballistic armor.
The Revolver should probably be adjusted to 5 damage, or rated OK at Near range. Right now it's out classed by basically everything except the Holdout pistol, making it kinda pointless.
-
Two more items to report on the form.
The Elemental armor has a ER Small Laser instead of a small laser. I suspect it is because there is no Clan small laser on the 3050 weapon list. It might have been able to slide but it means the that the elemental does more damage with the laser than it should.
On the 3050 clan weapon chart the Small Pulse laser lists 1 heat instead of 2. Again probably would slide until you start calculating heat for weapon groups. For the Savage Wolf A I stated up it means the difference between one or two heat tokens.
-
That invites a different answer every single time this very common situation comes up. And again, dooms every 'mech without a Long range weapon facing a faster (or even just as fast) opponent with one. That way lies madness... madness, I say!
A different answer every single time exactly what a narrative system looks for. And how do your concerns about the faster 'Mech with a longer-range weapon differ from the concerns you'd have in TW or AS in the same situation?
If this be madness, yet there is method to it ^_-
-
Page 33
"In gameplay, Plot Points may be used in many ways. They are
used to interrupt or alter another player’s Narration—a method of
adding a twist to the game. They can also be used to change player
turn order, alter a die roll, or gain back a point of Physical or Fatigue
damage. The ways players utilize Plot Points are only limited by how
creative they want to be."
I had seen that bit of wording, but it seemed strange to me that the most obvious use of a Plot Point (from my perspective as a Player) isn't just given in the list of examples. I'll grant you that it's not a silver bullet, since it gives the GM another chit of narrative ammo to use. That said if I'm a player I'm certainly going to save those Plot Points to totally obviate a difficult Test at every opportunity.
It also didn't seem self evident to me because three pages later EDGE gets described, and it exactly and only is able to affect the dice roll of Tests. I thought it would be strange to have two different metacurrencies able to affect potential Tests, with Plot Points totally obviating a test where EDGE can only alter the math a bit. I can square this in my head, given that EDGE isn't replenishable in-game and has a weaker mechanical benefit while also not giving the GM narrative ammo, but it still felt strange.
This whole section on Plot Points feels a little squishy and undercooked to me. I'd be happy to hear reasons why I'm wrong, though.
In other related tangentially-related weirdness: Under EDGE on Pg. 36 it says "Once you've spent them all, you'll have to wait until the beginning of the next gaming session for your Edge to refresh to its full amount." So, I could play with a group that gets through one Mission in a game session, or a different group that plays all day through multiple Missions, and in either case I get one set of Edge points to play with. What sense does that make? This looks like the only place in the rules where the time metric "gaming session" gates anything mechanically, and that doesn't seem right.
-
Does anyone else think that Body would be better than Strength for the stat? Body seems like a better catchall for what the attribute does than just Strength?
Yes, stumbled across it right away.
-
A different answer every single time exactly what a narrative system looks for. And how do your concerns about the faster 'Mech with a longer-range weapon differ from the concerns you'd have in TW or AS in the same situation?
If this be madness, yet there is method to it ^_-
And that's why narrative systems (as defined here) aren't for me. Blame my Physics degree.
My concerns in TW (I don't play AS) are mitigated somewhat by terrain, the Extreme Range rules, and my ability to actually move out of range. As written in Destiny, you CANNOT escape without "withdrawing" (ceding the battle entirely). And again, there ARE rules for moving out of Medium Range without "withdrawing". The lack of symmetry here is what's throwing me.
-
And that's why narrative systems (as defined here) aren't for me. Blame my Physics degree.
My concerns in TW (I don't play AS) are mitigated somewhat by terrain, the Extreme Range rules, and my ability to actually move out of range. As written in Destiny, you CANNOT escape without "withdrawing" (ceding the battle entirely). And again, there ARE rules for moving out of Medium Range without "withdrawing". The lack of symmetry here is what's throwing me.
Not that I want to help this train wreck of a game, but the easy answer is just add a new range band "out of range".
It's not hard it make sense to the narrative and allows for tactical movement outside weapons range without leaving the engagement.
-
The Elemental armor has a ER Small Laser instead of a small laser. I suspect it is because there is no Clan small laser on the 3050 weapon list. It might have been able to slide but it means the that the elemental does more damage with the laser than it should.
Yes the Elemental should have a Small Laser instead of a ER Small Laser, but this in an easy fix as the Clan Small Laser is statistically identical to the Innersphere one so just use the Innersphere stats.
-
And that's why narrative systems (as defined here) aren't for me. Blame my Physics degree.
My concerns in TW (I don't play AS) are mitigated somewhat by terrain, the Extreme Range rules, and my ability to actually move out of range. As written in Destiny, you CANNOT escape without "withdrawing" (ceding the battle entirely). And again, there ARE rules for moving out of Medium Range without "withdrawing". The lack of symmetry here is what's throwing me.
Ah. My undergraduate degree is in English, but came from an engineering-focused university where most of my friends were engineers/CompSci.
It's still possible to use terrain and such narratively; there just aren't defined rules for it.
-
A different answer every single time exactly what a narrative system looks for. And how do your concerns about the faster 'Mech with a longer-range weapon differ from the concerns you'd have in TW or AS in the same situation?
If this be madness, yet there is method to it ^_-
well, if consistency isn't necessarily something you strive for, then it makes the whole thing notably easier. ;)
Rule ambiguities becomes features and actually help players drive the narration to ever new creative ends. :)
-
Just FYI, if anyone is looking for the thread about using Destiny rules in combination with Alpha Strike, that thread was moved to Fan Rules:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=67009.0
Not sure why it didn't trigger a redirect thread.
-
Just FYI, if anyone is looking for the thread about using Destiny rules in combination with Alpha Strike, that thread was moved to Fan Rules:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=67009.0
Not sure why it didn't trigger a redirect thread.
Well I'm not sure is would technical be fans rule as no actual rules were being discussed.
It was more questioning if CGL should make optional rules for it, and was just talk about if it would be a good idea.
So not sure if that would be general or fan rule.
-
Just FYI, if anyone is looking for the thread about using Destiny rules in combination with Alpha Strike, that thread was moved to Fan Rules:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=67009.0
Not sure why it didn't trigger a redirect thread.
That would be so easy to do. Use CBT/AS maps, ranges, damage, movement...use Destiny task/skill resolution for Piloting, Gunnery, Communications or Computers (for Electronic Warfare stuff). It seems that you could also incorporate combined arms (vehicle/aerospace).
-
+++MOD NOTICE+++
Folks, we already moved a thread to Fan Rules. Posting a notice the thread was moved was not an invitation to begin posting about it in here, nor to start discussing new combinations of the rules. You're derailing the thread. Take the discussion where it belongs. Attempts to start a debate on the topic of exactly what is an official rule will, again, be derailing the thread. This directive is not up for debate in here.
I'd also like to point out that we have a rule against being excessively toxic or otherwise threadcrapping. Violators will have warnings issued. Just because you don't think MechWarrior: Destiny is for you is not a reason to repeatedly spew your dislike all over the place where others might be enjoying it. (If you're having to question whether I'm talking to you, that's a sign you need to consider what you're posting.)
-
I had seen that bit of wording, but it seemed strange to me that the most obvious use of a Plot Point (from my perspective as a Player) isn't just given in the list of examples. I'll grant you that it's not a silver bullet, since it gives the GM another chit of narrative ammo to use. That said if I'm a player I'm certainly going to save those Plot Points to totally obviate a difficult Test at every opportunity.
It also didn't seem self evident to me because three pages later EDGE gets described, and it exactly and only is able to affect the dice roll of Tests. I thought it would be strange to have two different metacurrencies able to affect potential Tests, with Plot Points totally obviating a test where EDGE can only alter the math a bit. I can square this in my head, given that EDGE isn't replenishable in-game and has a weaker mechanical benefit while also not giving the GM narrative ammo, but it still felt strange.
This whole section on Plot Points feels a little squishy and undercooked to me. I'd be happy to hear reasons why I'm wrong, though.
In other related tangentially-related weirdness: Under EDGE on Pg. 36 it says "Once you've spent them all, you'll have to wait until the beginning of the next gaming session for your Edge to refresh to its full amount." So, I could play with a group that gets through one Mission in a game session, or a different group that plays all day through multiple Missions, and in either case I get one set of Edge points to play with. What sense does that make? This looks like the only place in the rules where the time metric "gaming session" gates anything mechanically, and that doesn't seem right.
Plot Points affect the narrative, altering the course of events in the story arc. EDG, being an import from earlier versions of MW/BT RPGs, alters dice rolls directly in much the same way it did since it was introduced (I'm not familiar with MW 1/2, so I can't say if it was there, but definitely from MW3 on it's worked this way). Plot Points cannot change die rolls, and EDG cannot change the course of events directly.
-
I had a very successful first game of Mechwarrior: Destiny.
I run a regular D&D game at a youth shelter in my city. We're between campaigns right now so have been trying one-shots of other systems. I was planning on running ATOW, but the beta rules for MW:D came out just in time, and since it's a low-prep game, I read the rules and got a session ready within a few extra hours on the weekend.
The shared narrative was a huge hit with the shelter youth. One of the things I'm always trying to do with the youth is to create situations where they are empowered to affect their world. In D&D with the traditional delineation between game master as God, physics, and NPCs, and players as just their characters I spend a lot of time working with the backstories and perceived desires of the players to produce content where they feel they have meaningful choices and are part of the world.
The system of Mechwarrior: Destiny did a pile of that work for me, and to a better result than I've had with this group in D&D.
All the players found the pregenerated characters to have ample flavour to hook into. A player I have who always roles up different classes and races, but always ends up creating the same high-status holier-than-thou character, actually departed from their habits and got inside the head of Lovasina.
I ran the "Use the Diversion" briefing with some extra lore about the players being connected to locals on a planet that has changed hands and the new FedSuns duke is bringing in settlers to strip mine, chasing the locals out of the cities. The players are part of the rebellion and need to raid a fort to get a copy of the surrender agreement which they've been told guarantees them rights that are currently being trampled.
They bought in right away. Without having ever played anything "battletech" were able to get the flavour just from the character sheets. They invented a whole new scene right off the hop of going to a strip mine and trying to steal a mining mech to infiltrate the fort in. They failed miserably, but one of the players introduced with a plot point that the MP Officer who was taking them into custody was her Ex and still had feelings for her. Out of the player's imagination was born Captain John Michaels, strictly disciplined security chief, but with such a soft spot for Jaimie that he believed that she was indeed forced into trying to steal a workmech by evil rebels and who's feeling allowed the players the chance they needed to escape the Paddy Wagon Hover Craft and start a firefight in the base courtyard.
With the extra scene, we didn't get to the end of the briefing but finished on a great cliffhanger of another character's girlfriend storming through the fortress gates just as John Michaels orders them opened to let his ex-wife and her two orphan dependents leave to avoid the battle.
The response from the players after the game was adamant that they want another session and they've asked if we can play MW:D instead of D&D for the next big campaign.
I loved it because as a game master I got to welcome player's ideas about the world and I saw the adventure become personal and enticing to the players without having to guess what they wanted from the experience.
I'm a big fan of the system so far.
-
Haven't had the chance to get a dry run for the system but I do like how it's very narritive driven which is great for playing online via chat as many of my friends now have little time for face to face RP.
-
dsteelegm: That's a fantastic result! Engagement on that level with new players is rare. Honestly, I couldn't do it. I played a narrative game last night in lieu of our regular 5e D&D game, and while it was as entertaining as any evening spent with friends, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Consistency is lost when the players can affect fundamental game mechanics, and consistency is the soul of any game system. The novelty of Destiny will wear off as surely as it did for Amber and the other "diceless" games years ago.
That said, you've got your hooks into them now, so run with it! :thumbsup:
-
dsteelegm: That's a fantastic result! Engagement on that level with new players is rare. Honestly, I couldn't do it. I played a narrative game last night in lieu of our regular 5e D&D game, and while it was as entertaining as any evening spent with friends, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Consistency is lost when the players can affect fundamental game mechanics, and consistency is the soul of any game system. The novelty of Destiny will wear off as surely as it did for Amber and the other "diceless" games years ago.
That said, you've got your hooks into them now, so run with it! :thumbsup:
Although Destiny seems to have a lot of buzz than A Time of War did at the get go, and with the easier buy-in, less GM work, and streamlined rules...it just may have longer legs.
-
As long as it doesn't kill AToW, it will be forgiven...
-
Consistency is lost when the players can affect fundamental game mechanics, and consistency is the soul of any game system.
You've clearly never played Flux. ;D
-
I've totally played Flux, and it's anything but a game "system". It's perfectly fine as a game (like Eleusis, back in the day).
-
As long as it doesn't kill AToW, it will be forgiven...
IF AToW's material presentation can't kill AToW i don't think MW:Destiny will. ;D
-
I'm curious to see how Destiny is going to lend itself to theatre of mind mecha combat. I can see it being a breeze with a storyteller taking on the role of opposition and theatre of the mind the hell out of it, but when it comes down to doing player vs player action without an storyteller (or GM) the determining of the terrain the mecha are fighting in seems to be problematic without maps or tokens, which is something I want to avoid.
If anyone have any ideas please share. I will be homebrewing some ideas to alleviate the issue, but I can't play test the ideas until November. So I'm on the lookout for possible solutions to this issue.
Thanks in advance for any positive contribution to my post.
-
There are rules to use Destiny in Total Warfare and Alpha Strike play.
-
I'm curious to see how Destiny is going to lend itself to theatre of mind mecha combat. I can see it being a breeze with a storyteller taking on the role of opposition and theatre of the mind the hell out of it, but when it comes down to doing player vs player action without an storyteller (or GM) the determining of the terrain the mecha are fighting in seems to be problematic without maps or tokens, which is something I want to avoid.
If anyone have any ideas please share. I will be homebrewing some ideas to alleviate the issue, but I can't play test the ideas until November. So I'm on the lookout for possible solutions to this issue.
Thanks in advance for any positive contribution to my post.
There are rules to use Destiny in Total Warfare and Alpha Strike play.
This is your best answer. maps have been the way to avoid this problem for as long as resolving these things has been a problem for a good reason, it shuts the argument down before it starts. you'll never get a bunch of people to imagine the same thing unless you start dictating the space everything is at anyways, so a map is a much more flexible way of doing that.
-
The other thing is, just looking at the rules for combat in Destiny, all you have to do is use the stats provided without any conversion. You're just using a hex map for a visual instead of going abstract. IMO, I would rather use a hex map, because we got those awesome neoprene maps for a reason.
-
The other thing is, just looking at the rules for combat in Destiny, all you have to do is use the stats provided without any conversion. You're just using a hex map for a visual instead of going abstract. IMO, I would rather use a hex map, because we got those awesome neoprene maps for a reason.
OTOH something like Alpha Strike would be a good fit for dsteelegm's situation where the roleplayers aren't necessarily familiar with wargaming.
-
OTOH something like Alpha Strike would be a good fit for dsteelegm's situation where the roleplayers aren't necessarily familiar with wargaming.
It would be.
Destiny in hexmap play, unless I missed something, needs some work. The only problem I see is having 1 or 2 movement on a hex map. Considering how combat works doubling movement would probably be a good workaround. Or using Walking MP combined with the Destiny conversion stat for modifiers (example: Assassin having a MP of 7J, but the Destiny TMM would be 4J). That way you can just stick with the stats in the book, and combat really would not be that much different. Doubling range brackets would probably be a good idea too.
I would like to post more of the rules here to explain how it would work, but I don't know if it would be allowed.
-
Feedback #1 (500 character limit)
.
(A) Focus on AGOAC 3025 era; drop the clan info into an expansion, add more missions, GM advice, and BTU lore. (B) MWD reads as a one-shot and con experience; it lacks the depths of prior editions for extended campaign play. (C) Gear and weapons section is too limited. (D) Healing in combat unclear, with regards to using a skill, using a med kit, normal healing and/or a combination of all the above. (E) Don’t like the “cue system”, I prefer more options for GM/referee style play.
-
Feedback #2 (500 character limit)
.
(A) MWD Pre-gen PCs aimed for combat, one-shots and conventions, not campaign play.
(B) ATOW+Comp: Aerospace Pilot, Battle Armor Specialist, Battlefield Tech, Canine Soldier, Chopper Pilot, Communications Specialist, Elemental, Faceman, Grizzled Veteran, Hot Shot, Information Broker, Martial Artist, Mechwarrior, Renegade Warrior, Scout, Sniper, Tanker
(C) MWD: Aerospace Fighter (x2), Communications Specialist (x1), Covert Ops (x2), Infantry (x2), Insurgent (x1), Mechwarrior (x11), Tanker (x2),Technician (x1)
-
You did send that feedback to the form in the Kickstarter update? This isn’t where to submit the feedback.
-
You did send that feedback to the form in the Kickstarter update? This isn’t where to submit the feedback.
Yes, also here, on the BT CGL KS page, and the BT CI KS Update #40 comments. I like reading other people's survey feedback and responces to my own (I always learn new things).
.
As far as I understand from this forums rules its allowable as I am not sharing any files or beta doc info?
-
Yeah, I just wanted to make sure it got where it needed to go.
-
Yes, also here, on the BT CGL KS page, and the BT CI KS Update #40 comments. I like reading other people's survey feedback and responces to my own (I always learn new things).
Fine, but one of those four places is the only one I'm looking at as I'm starting to weed through and sort feedback.
-
Yes, also here, on the BT CGL KS page, and the BT CI KS Update #40 comments. I like reading other people's survey feedback and responces to my own (I always learn new things).
We answered each others posts on the KS Update and I think I might try at least a one shot with MW:D, it looks pretty good so far. I think my players will like the proprietary 'Mech combat system. And my back-up plan is Mongoose Traveller mixed in with some MW2 rules. But that solution sorely lacks a 'Mech combat system other than switching to Total War.
-
Fine, but one of those four places is the only one I'm looking at as I'm starting to weed through and sort feedback.
1- Can you share which one is your primary focus? (I'm guessing the actual survey link.)
2- Any particular type of feedback results standing out?
3- What kind of feedback (of the various types you can select in the survey link) is the most useful?
-
1 - The link. That's where we've asked people to share edits with the development team. I have no plans to try to comb hundreds if not eventually thousands of comments across multiple forums for specific edits.
2 - Too complex an answer to give here, it's all over the map. But there are some valid points being made, some worthwhile stuff.
3 - We're open to any feedback as long as it's specific and actionable. "I hate this system, this is garbage, I'll never play it" is not useful. And yes, we have gotten several comments along almost those exact lines.
-
Thanks for the quick and informative responce @Cubby. :)
-
Cubby, I appreciate the clarity here, but as this is the OFFICIAL FORUM of CGL, I'd expect some "official" review of posts here. If this forum isn't intended to be "official" anymore, I understand but would really like some explanation.
-
Cubby, I appreciate the clarity here, but as this is the OFFICIAL FORUM of CGL, I'd expect some "official" review of posts here. If this forum isn't intended to be "official" anymore, I understand but would really like some explanation.
This is the county courthouse. Please direct all vehicle inquiries to the DMV. Both are still official buildings; you're in the wrong place to be heard on a specific issue for which instructions have been issued to follow.
-
I have provided feedback via the form, but seriously... if this is an OFFICIAL forum, it should be heard.
-
And it may or may not be heard, but they did ask every one to put their feedback in a specific place so I'm assuming their attention is centered there first.
-
I agree with it being first, but not "only"...
-
Most writers want to spend their time writing, not combing through social media all day long. (Exceptions do occur).
They've got a process for collecting feedback. If you think that's too much trouble, there's hundreds and thousands of you, and a mere handful of writers/developers. Making the hundreds do a couple minutes extra work saves the writers hundreds of hours of work that they can spend getting their actual job done.
-
Which then begs the question as to why they maintain these forums are "official"...
-
Errata, Rules Questions, Announcements, the pretty logo?
-
Which all reinforce my claim that "official" means "official"... these forums shouldn't be ignored.
-
Let me also add that while these forums are official, they are also public and won't let the writers easily ask for clarification discretely nor easily. This is not a public beta and using a public forum for such purposes would weaken if not obviate the kickstarter exclusiveness of the beta.
-
I have provided feedback via the form, but seriously... if this is an OFFICIAL forum, it should be heard.
No. The method by which the data has to be submitted in order for it to be parsed and used has been identified. The fact that this is an official forum is irrelevant. The amount of labor needed to collect *and process* every possible post is prohibitive.
Thats like saying you submitted playtest data because you chatted with a Demo agent that ‘one time’ at that ‘one place’. Just not a reasonable stance to take, especially when youre collecting info from possibly 11,000 people. You need a system, and you need 1 system.
-
given they provided a specific and structured feedback form, I'm not really sure what "the forums being official" has to do with collecting feedback.
Oh sure they might use some of what they read on some random thread on the forum, but if you want your voice be heard there is a defined channel. :)
PS: once they ask for the canon character infos, I would bet they also only accept info provided through a defined channel not stuff thrown at them on the forum. ;)
-
You don't need to process "every post" for the "forum" to be heard. There are a few issues here that have been debated at length and in detail by multiple users, with participation from apparent powers that be. Again, I've submitted several issues by the requested form. I'm just saying that establishing the form shouldn't give TPTB a free pass from reading their official forum.
-
...
I'm just saying that establishing the form shouldn't give TPTB a free pass from reading their official forum.
actually, it does, at least in this specific context.
it doesn't say they aren't allowed to use extra input, but if someone institutes a specific feedback channel (email, web-form, etc) for a specific purpose you can bet that that this will be the main input source for that purpose.
-
You don't need to process "every post" for the "forum" to be heard. There are a few issues here that have been debated at length and in detail by multiple users, with participation from apparent powers that be. Again, I've submitted several issues by the requested form. I'm just saying that establishing the form shouldn't give TPTB a free pass from reading their official forum.
I am obviously not a dev, but after reading the pdf in the last 3 days I came back to this thread to see if such and such point were discussed. It's simply painful to do so(and the search feature of SMF is seriously lacking) and it's kinda tiring trying to follow a conversation as it's too broken up by other comments in btw. And then someone will post a relevant post 3 pages later than the rest of the main conversation because he was late to the discussion.
My suggestion? Fill out the form with one subject in it, and put a link to the relevant posts.
-
actually, it does, at least in this specifc context.
*snip*
That's your opinion, and you're as welcome to it as I am to mine.
Being that TPTB actually comment here from time to time, that indicates they DO read the forums, and they shouldn't ignore the threads about new products.
-
And for the record, I just tried to submit the range issue via the form, and the comment section literally isn't long enough to explain all the implications. It's simply too complex an issue to fit in 500 characters...
-
Fix rng pls
Kthxbye
-
That's your opinion, and you're as welcome to it as I am to mine.
sure, and so is CG. :)
Being that TPTB actually comment here from time to time, that indicates they DO read the forums, and they shouldn't ignore the threads about new products.
there is a difference between ignoring and not using it as a structured/guaranteed way of input.
there is a reason why the feedback form contains categories and references.
-
I'm just saying that establishing the form shouldn't give TPTB a free pass from reading their official forum.
It absolutely does. Your position is unreasonable in the extreme. You think these forums being official means Ray or Randall need to read the thousands of posts personally? How else would they know which handful matter.
Ridiculous.
But I dont think I can change your mind.
-
Fix rng pls
Kthxbye
Which explains exactly none of the implications.
*snip*
there is a difference between ignoring and not using it as a structured/guaranteed way of input.
there is a reason why the feedback form contains categories and references.
And there's also a difference between reading these forums and ignoring them.
The "categories and references" also don't provide enough space to explain all the implications of poor design...
It absolutely does. Your position is unreasonable in the extreme. You think these forums being official means Ray or Randall need to read the thousands of posts personally? How else would they know which handful matter.
Ridiculous.
But I dont think I can change your mind.
That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I just said. They do NOT need to read every post. But the range issue (as one example) has been discussed at length and in detail by numerous posters. Even a quick skim of the this thread would be unlikely to miss it.
-
That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I just said. They do NOT need to read every post.
In order to determine which posts are important, wouldn't they have to read them all?
-
Shouting down the hallways at City Hall isn't going to renew your car registration Daryk. TPTB are under no obligation to take this thread seriously. This being the "official" forum does absolutely nothing to change that.
-
That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I just said. They do NOT need to read every post. But the range issue (as one example) has been discussed at length and in detail by numerous posters. Even a quick skim of the this thread would be unlikely to miss it.
A quick skim of 23 pages...?
-
As I have said repeatedly in this very thread, I have posted the issues I've brought up here via the official form. The trouble is, the official form doesn't have enough space to explain things in the detail they've been discussed here, which should bear on the eventual resolution (or non-resolution) of the issues in question.
A quick skim of 23 pages...?
Yes, a "quick" skim of 23 pages, which is quite a bit less work if you're scanning your "official" forums regularly.
-
Shouting down the hallways at City Hall isn't going to renew your car registration Daryk. TPTB are under no obligation to take this thread seriously. This being the "official" forum does absolutely nothing to change that.
nice way of sneaking in a car comparison. :thumbsup:
general point, ironically every post on this meta discussion is degrading the usefulness of this thread as a direct feedback source - highlighting the advantage of one way feedback forms, they tend not to drift into tangential discussions. ;)
-
Which explains exactly none of the implications.
No shit? I figured using 2005 era text talk would appropriately parody the difficulty of the tiny character limit
-
You can explain the range issue in less than 500 words.
-
You can explain the range issue in less than 500 words.
Quite simply, in fact: "Some players are unable to alter their perception of BattleTech to fit within the structure of a narrative system".
-
As I have said repeatedly in this very thread, I have posted the issues I've brought up here via the official form. The trouble is, the official form doesn't have enough space to explain things in the detail they've been discussed here, which should bear on the eventual resolution (or non-resolution) of the issues in question.
if you can't fit your explaination of the problem in the form, there's a fair chance the problem is less mechanical and more preferential. they're looking for the former, so try to cut it down to what's not working and if you can't, either look at it from another angle or drop the matter entirely. i've done my fair share of betas, and while it might feel right to tell them what you don't like about it in a 12-page essay*, they can't get much use out of it and you'll get ignored.
(*beta forums are strange places, i can't recommend them)
-
I read this forum.
That said:
Please send feedback where it was requested. We have a process, please follow it. We’d really appreciate it.
Thank you.
-
Sir: I have, and I'm glad to hear you're following the more detailed discussion here.
-
Sir: I have, and I'm glad to hear you're following the more detailed discussion here.
;D
Your Mech at the next game will have 3 arms and 1 leg. :p
-
Oohh, a quad! :D
-
Edit: nevermind
-
Question from someone who hasn't read the beta and whose contact with narrative systems has been limited:
The term "narrative play" is pretty broad, and encompasses a variety of narrative styles, of which Kung Fu Dynamite is but one. Does Destiny favor one style of narrative in particular, whether mechanically or in its assumptions or mood or advice? Should it?
-
Question from someone who hasn't read the beta and whose contact with narrative systems has been limited:
The term "narrative play" is pretty broad, and encompasses a variety of narrative styles, of which Kung Fu Dynamite is but one. Does Destiny favor one style of narrative in particular, whether mechanically or in its assumptions or mood or advice? Should it?
Easiest way ti describe it is "pass the baton role playing".
-
Question from someone who hasn't read the beta and whose contact with narrative systems has been limited:
The term "narrative play" is pretty broad, and encompasses a variety of narrative styles, of which Kung Fu Dynamite is but one. Does Destiny favor one style of narrative in particular, whether mechanically or in its assumptions or mood or advice? Should it?
(Pardon the potentially long post, and spoilers for a near-40-year-old movie below ;D)
I think, reading it over that it is supposed to be cinematic in scope, like the players and GM are making a collaborative movie almost. From what I can see, this would be a typical scene if The Wrath Of Khan were played with this system:
Nicholas, the GM: From the screen, Khan smiles triumphantly. "I give you sixty seconds," he sneers, "for you and your valiant crew." Bill, what does Kirk do?
Bill (playing Kirk): Kirk crosses over to Saavik at her control station. He ponders for a moment, and tries to recall starship operations.
Nicholas: OK, make a Knowledge roll. (Nicholas rolls for difficulty, Bill's knowledge roll beats his). OK. Tell me what Kirk finds out.
Bill: Sure. He remembers that each starship has a prefix code meant to stop hijackings like this. We're going to try to hack into his ship and bring his shields down. "Saavik, punch up the records for Reliant's command console. Hurry. Keep nodding like I'm giving orders." And I pass the mic over to Kirstie.
Kirstie (playing Saavik): I'm punching up the data now. Do I need to make a roll?
Nicholas: I'm gonna say yes, just as you're under a time crunch. BTW, Khan says "45 seconds."
Kirstie: All right. (Both make their rolls, and Kirstie's fails.) Drat. Can I spend a point of Edge?
Nicholas: Go for it.
Kirstie: OK, I'm going to make you reroll that difficulty. (Nicholas rerolls, and is lower than Kirstie's roll.)
Nicholas: Nicely played. The info for Reliant's command console appears on your console.
Kirstie: And I'll pass the mic to Leonard.
Leonard (Playing Spock): As they're doing that, Spock is pulling up the prefix number for Reliant at the Science station. (Both Leonard and Nicholas make their rolls, and Leonard wins.) He walks back down to the helm console where Kirk and Saavik are. Standing stoically with his back to the screen, he whispers to Saavik. "Reliant's prefix code is 16309." He says to Kirk "He's quite intelligent. How do we know he hasn't changed it?" Nick, you can have the mic back.
Bill: I'm going to spend a plot point to take the narration.
Nicholas: Sure.
Bill: As he's keying in information, he asks Khan "How do we know you'll keep your word?"
Nicholas: We'll go into Talk Time briefly. Khan says "Oh, I've given you no word to keep. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative."
Bill: "I see your point. Stand by to receive our transmission." He cuts the sound, and whispers to the weapons officer to lock weapons.
Nicholas: You're going to have to make a roll, remember that Khan isn't a dummy.
Bill: OK. (Makes a Perform roll, against Khan's Perception. Bill wins.)
Nicholas: Looks like you got one over on him. He says "Time's up, Admiral."
Bill: Kirk says, in as defeated a manner as he can, "Here it comes. Now, Spock." I turn the mic over to Kirstie.
Kirstie: I'm going to pass to see what Leonard does.
Leonard: Spock keys in the prefix code and transmits it. And I'm passing the mic back to you, Nicholas.
Nicholas: You see utter pandemonium on the Reliant's bridge, as one of Khan's crewmembers yells that the shields are going down. Khan screams in rage "Override! Where's the override!?" before the signal cuts.
-
I read Cosmic Patrol when that RPG came out, and I've seen a number of the HyperRPG/Harebrained shows, so the concepts of "passing the baton" and decentralized scene control are not unfamiliar to me.
Would you say the system leans more towards TOS Star Trek cinema for kinds of actions and style of action, as opposed to other kinds of cinema? Or did you mean that the system favors episodic "Wrath of Khan" scale incidents?
-
(Pardon the potentially long post, and spoilers for a near-40-year-old movie below ;D)
I think, reading it over that it is supposed to be cinematic in scope, like the players and GM are making a collaborative movie almost. From what I can see, this would be a typical scene if The Wrath Of Khan were played with this system:
Nicholas, the GM: From the screen, Khan smiles triumphantly. "I give you sixty seconds," he sneers, "for you and your valiant crew." Bill, what does Kirk do?
Bill (playing Kirk): Kirk crosses over to Saavik at her control station. He ponders for a moment, and tries to recall starship operations.
Nicholas: OK, make a Knowledge roll. (Nicholas rolls for difficulty, Bill's knowledge roll beats his). OK. Tell me what Kirk finds out.
Bill: Sure. He remembers that each starship has a prefix code meant to stop hijackings like this. We're going to try to hack into his ship and bring his shields down. "Saavik, punch up the records for Reliant's command console. Hurry. Keep nodding like I'm giving orders." And I pass the mic over to Kirstie.
Kirstie (playing Saavik): I'm punching up the data now. Do I need to make a roll?
Nicholas: I'm gonna say yes, just as you're under a time crunch. BTW, Khan says "45 seconds."
Kirstie: All right. (Both make their rolls, and Kirstie's fails.) Drat. Can I spend a point of Edge?
Nicholas: Go for it.
Kirstie: OK, I'm going to make you reroll that difficulty. (Nicholas rerolls, and is lower than Kirstie's roll.)
Nicholas: Nicely played. The info for Reliant's command console appears on your console.
Kirstie: And I'll pass the mic to Leonard.
Leonard (Playing Spock): As they're doing that, Spock is pulling up the prefix number for Reliant at the Science station. (Both Leonard and Nicholas make their rolls, and Leonard wins.) He walks back down to the helm console where Kirk and Saavik are. Standing stoically with his back to the screen, he whispers to Saavik. "Reliant's prefix code is 16309." He says to Kirk "He's quite intelligent. How do we know he hasn't changed it?" Nick, you can have the mic back.
Bill: I'm going to spend a plot point to take the narration.
Nicholas: Sure.
Bill: As he's keying in information, he asks Khan "How do we know you'll keep your word?"
Nicholas: We'll go into Talk Time briefly. Khan says "Oh, I've given you no word to keep. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative."
Bill: "I see your point. Stand by to receive our transmission." He cuts the sound, and whispers to the weapons officer to lock weapons.
Nicholas: You're going to have to make a roll, remember that Khan isn't a dummy.
Bill: OK. (Makes a Perform roll, against Khan's Perception. Bill wins.)
Nicholas: Looks like you got one over on him. He says "Time's up, Admiral."
Bill: Kirk says, in as defeated a manner as he can, "Here it comes. Now, Spock." I turn the mic over to Kirstie.
Kirstie: I'm going to pass to see what Leonard does.
Leonard: Spock keys in the prefix code and transmits it. And I'm passing the mic back to you, Nicholas.
Nicholas: You see utter pandemonium on the Reliant's bridge, as one of Khan's crewmembers yells that the shields are going down. Khan screams in rage "Override! Where's the override!?" before the signal cuts.
Put that in the rulebook.
Word.
For.
Word.
-
Feedback #3
The section on Traits and Life Modules (ps.79-151) are useful to have in the Character Creation section (ps.88-76), not in the Gear section, as it requires flipping back and forth (or printing out two pages) when creating military or combat focused PCs.
.
(Feedback already submitted via survey link, posted here for conversation purposes.)
-
Feedback #3
The section on Traits and Life Modules (ps.79-151) are useful to have in the Character Creation section (ps.88-76), not in the Gear section, as it requires flipping back and forth (or printing out two pages) when creating military or combat focused PCs.
.
(Feedback already submitted via survey link, posted here for conversation purposes.)
You may want to double-check those page numbers, especially the set which appears to be numbered backwards ^_-
Traits and Life Modules are on pp. 151-152, and Character Creation is on pp. 68-74.
-
I reported that issue early on (with the correct page numbers).
-
Put that in the rulebook.
Word.
For.
Word.
Yes! :bow:
-
Daryk should get a minor writing credit at the end of this
-
Thanks Sartris! I managed to get myself into the "Special Thanks" of a couple of the core rulebooks, and would be ecstatic to continue that into the future! :thumbsup:
-
Yeah I was surprised to see I got in the BMM that way
The bar must have been set very low
-
I don't think the bar is "low", though it's not exactly "set", either. I wasn't entirely in favor of the concept of the BMM, so I wasn't disappointed to (ahem) NOT be there.
EDIT: Forgot a negative... :-[
-
So has anyone took a chance and tried the Cue system yet? I know there has been a lot of back and forth about this and that and I did like the example using ST Wraith of Khan but I am wondering has anyone tried to run it and what are your thoughts? ( If I need to move this question to another thread please let me know?)
-
Worth suggesting adding the Ab/Flak armor to the game?
-
Yes... Though I'll add that pretty much applies to ANY equipment Destiny is lacking compared to AToW...
-
Worth suggesting adding the Ab/Flak armor to the game?
Definitely
-
Worth suggesting adding the Ab/Flak armor to the game?
Not too difficult to imagine--take the Infiltration Suit and add 2 pips, if you must have it.
-
One thing that doesn't fill me with too much hope for Destiny...
https://www.catalystgamelabs.com/cosmic-patrol/
Go down and follow the link under "Getting Started"
-
One thing that doesn't fill me with too much hope for Destiny...
https://www.catalystgamelabs.com/cosmic-patrol/
Go down and follow the link under "Getting Started"
Cosmic Patrol didn't get the same support as BattleTech, obviously. Obviously the CP site hasn't been updated recently, and the domain was allowed to lapse. I don't see such a thing happening to a BT supplement--unless you think these forums are going to disappear anytime in the next few years. . . .
-
accept your new future as a scammy online casino, peasants
-
I will post more when I get home, but from my perspective as a founder of a group and longtime GM for many years a rules-lite game with a system inplace for the players to outright take control from the GM in certain conditions/pull equipment from the magical anal bag of infinite gear will only really work with a very certain set of players and will, in most groups, lead to a break down as players seize control of the plot and lead to a full derailment, often pursuing something utterly stupid, or otherwise using the control to either save a mary-sue self inser OC donut steal character or to kill off an NPC they dislike or even to strike against another player. I admit I am jaded by some recent years of bad players, but handing over GM control is a nope. Having a player tank control and save their character at a moment when you wanted it to die off, or kill off a character they are bored with is counter productive, as is a proxy war between two PC's using NPC's.
And before anyone asks, sometimes things need to happen for decencies sake. Midget prostitutes are funny in some settings, but not in a group that is playing in a public place.
-
Cosmic Patrol didn't get the same support as BattleTech, obviously. Obviously the CP site hasn't been updated recently, and the domain was allowed to lapse. I don't see such a thing happening to a BT supplement--unless you think these forums are going to disappear anytime in the next few years. . . .
Sure, but it doesn't inspire confidence in the system. I don't know how Cosmic Patrol is doing, but it gives the impression that the main game has failed, and that makes me question the foundation of Destiny.
-
Cosmic Patrol didn't get the same support as BattleTech, obviously. Obviously the CP site hasn't been updated recently, and the domain was allowed to lapse. I don't see such a thing happening to a BT supplement--unless you think these forums are going to disappear anytime in the next few years. . . .
What support?
The corebook is not even out of beta yet.
The system that the game was made for appears to be dead or so back burner its domain lapsed.
And the still active version of the Cue system, SR:A only has one supporting book since 2016.
With the only plans for a clan sourcebook I don't see this support.
-
What support?
The corebook is not even out of beta yet.
The system that the game was made for appears to be dead or so back burner its domain lapsed.
And the still active version of the Cue system, SR:A only has one supporting book since 2016.
With the only plans for a clan sourcebook I don't see this support.
We haven't even released the book yet, and already it's not getting enough support?
-
We haven't even released the book yet, and already it's not getting enough support?
The poster I was responding to was stating that it was getting more support then Cosmic Patrol.
My point was since it was still in beta how could that judgment be made.
-
The poster I was responding to was stating that it was getting more support then Cosmic Patrol.
My point was since it was still in beta how could that judgment be made.
Because it's still in beta testing and the commitment for one more book is already here. You're also talking about BattleTech and not Cosmic Patrol, which has almost no fan base. MW:D as a product is about bridging miniature wargaming and role-playing.
-
Because it's still in beta testing and the commitment for one more book is already here. You're also talking about BattleTech and not Cosmic Patrol, which has almost no fan base. MW:D as a product is about bridging miniature wargaming and role-playing.
Fan-base and support tend to be to separate thing in the RPG industry.
Again my point is you can't claim something has more support when it isn't even out yet.
But that neither here nor there, back to the threads intent.
-
Cosmic Patrol didn't get the same support as BattleTech, obviously. Obviously the CP site hasn't been updated recently, and the domain was allowed to lapse. I don't see such a thing happening to a BT supplement--unless you think these forums are going to disappear anytime in the next few years. . . .
IIRC, Cosmic Patrol wasn't ever slated to have as much support as BT or Shadowrun. I think the plan was to release 3-4 books total and then move on. I don't know exactly why that was the plan or that I'm remembering correctly so take this with a grain of salt.
-
I will post more when I get home, but from my perspective as a founder of a group and longtime GM for many years a rules-lite game with a system inplace for the players to outright take control from the GM in certain conditions
In fairness, there could be a few more rules on how to handle disruptive narrations, but disruptive players are easily dealt with. "This group/game isn't a fit for you, you're disinvited."
/pull equipment from the magical anal bag of infinite gear
Four-six items max does not a hammerspace-ex-machina make.
will only really work with a very certain set of players and will, in most groups, lead to a break down as players seize control of the plot and lead to a full derailment, often pursuing something utterly stupid, or otherwise using the control to either save a mary-sue self inser OC donut steal character or to kill off an NPC they dislike
It looks like the game takes that into account, and even encourages all of this in a limited manner. Granted, there are times where a full derailment would be bad, but any game has to be open to the story going in directions the GM wasn't intending it to go. Either the GM can say "all as planned, this is what I wanted to happen", roll with it, or gently get the game back on track (again, using judicious application of the banhammer if a player is hell-bent on causing trouble). What you see as a bug is in limited doses actually a feature, IMO.
I admit I am jaded by some recent years of bad players, but handing over GM control is a nope. Having a player tank control and save their character at a moment when you wanted it to die off,
That's not a GM's job, IMO. Character death isn't something that should be actively sought by the GM (unless you're playing Paranoia, but there, it's pretty much everybody vs. everybody else played for laughs). if it happens, it happens, but I wouldn't want to play with a GM who wants to kill characters.
And before anyone asks, sometimes things need to happen for decencies sake. Midget prostitutes are funny in some settings, but not in a group that is playing in a public place.
Really, it depends on the group. As a GM, I'd put my foot down because I like to keep my games generally to a PG-13 level, even in a private setting. And that's one thing that this does have to take into consideration, the comfort level of the different players. Again, that goes back to the ultimate sanction for a player who continues to violate whatever consensus exists in the group as to content.
-
If you played a rifleman could you use the arm flip for a mech that gets behind you?
-
If you played a rifleman could you use the arm flip for a mech that gets behind you?
Don't see why not.
-
Cool I plan on doing some arm flipping madness then! >:D
-
I will post more when I get home, but from my perspective as a founder of a group and longtime GM for many years a rules-lite game with a system inplace for the players to outright take control from the GM in certain conditions
In fairness, there could be a few more rules on how to handle disruptive narrations, but disruptive players are easily dealt with. "This group/game isn't a fit for you, you're disinvited."
as someone that's spent a fair amount of time teaching new groups how to play, this is frequently not even remotely an option. a lot of the time, i was teaching highschool to sixth graders the ropes and they were all friends/classmates. telling them to GTFO led to more problems than it solved, as the bad player would cause the rest of the group trouble afterwards.
-will only really work with a very certain set of players and will, in most groups, lead to a break down as players seize control of the plot and lead to a full derailment, often pursuing something utterly stupid, or otherwise using the control to either save a mary-sue self inser OC donut steal character or to kill off an NPC they dislike
It looks like the game takes that into account, and even encourages all of this in a limited manner. Granted, there are times where a full derailment would be bad, but any game has to be open to the story going in directions the GM wasn't intending it to go. Either the GM can say "all as planned, this is what I wanted to happen", roll with it, or gently get the game back on track (again, using judicious application of the banhammer if a player is hell-bent on causing trouble). What you see as a bug is in limited doses actually a feature, IMO.
your "feature" is honestly just GM experience. if they don't have a very good GM, he's very likely to get browbeat and lose all narrative, which has always led to the game getting stale as the players get lost in personal squabbles and number-chasing. Something i've noticed about these "theater of the mind" game systems is they assume a very high skill level on the part of the GM but then fail to take the poor kid aside and drop the high hopes and give them some real talk about just how bad the players can get and how they're gonna have to take it.
Character death isn't something that should be actively sought by the GM (unless you're playing Paranoia, but there, it's pretty much everybody vs. everybody else played for laughs). if it happens, it happens, but I wouldn't want to play with a GM who wants to kill characters.
you sometimes need to dispose of characters if you're running games where the player isn't someone you can remove. it's not the ideal resolution, but it is what it is.
-
We haven't even released the book yet, and already it's not getting enough support?
Yes. Could you release some supplements first, then the game?
-
...
It looks like the game takes that into account, and even encourages all of this in a limited manner. Granted, there are times where a full derailment would be bad, but any game has to be open to the story going in directions the GM wasn't intending it to go. Either the GM can say "all as planned, this is what I wanted to happen", roll with it, or gently get the game back on track (again, using judicious application of the banhammer if a player is hell-bent on causing trouble). What you see as a bug is in limited doses actually a feature, IMO.
...
just as a side note, there is a difference between "the story going of the rails because of characters doing unexpected stuff" and "the world going of the rails because of player choices". In the first, while having to improvise when in unknown territory, the GM can still shape the world in a structured and consistent way (within his improvisation skills and general world building). In the second case the GM has to let the player have his agency and maybe slightly correct the way without undoing anything directly or go directly to the meta level and reign a player in.
Personally, in the second case is too much referee for me while in the first case all but the real hard cases can be dealt with within the game world or discussed between sessions, but that's just my personal opinion. :)
-
You know... for 'Mech combat. Do all weapons in a group hit the same location or do you roll per weapon?
-
Orin hit on most of my points, but hey, its my OP so might as well.
In fairness, there could be a few more rules on how to handle disruptive narrations, but disruptive players are easily dealt with. "This group/game isn't a fit for you, you're disinvited."
Sadly it is not always that easy. Actually, often it is not so. Doing so, especially amongst friends, can sour relationships.
Four-six items max does not a hammerspace-ex-machina make.
No, but plotpoints does. I 'plotpoint' a spare reload I forgot about or a old respirator someone left down here or a sodding Mech ripe for salvage. Its openly a bad system, and those "4 items" can be anything from a pocket knife to a fusion charger!
It looks like the game takes that into account, and even encourages all of this in a limited manner.
This is not a good thing. I am no rules layer and run open world games, but outright letting players take control is not a good thing, especially for a newbie GM. All the players and the GM have to be on the same page and that is a rare thing.
Granted, there are times where a full derailment would be bad,
Aye. All the time.
but any game has to be open to the story going in directions the GM wasn't intending it to go.
Agreed again, but not down some routes, and not in some venues. There is shit members of my group decided to pull that I do not want to ever have to deal with again. Leastwhys, not in full public.
Either the GM can say "all as planned, this is what I wanted to happen", roll with it,
You described 60% of GMing
or gently get the game back on track
Well, there is another 20%
(again, using judicious application of the banhammer if a player is hell-bent on causing trouble).
Unless you are on Discord this is not always an option, at least no immediately. Trust me on this.
What you see as a bug is in limited doses actually a feature, IMO.
A feature that lets players weasel around obstacles or outright fight one another via proxy or just decide to derail the game for fun repeatedly. Bonus points if the problem player has home field advantage.
That's not a GM's job, IMO. Character death isn't something that should be actively sought by the GM
Depends. Midget prostitutes. Minmaxed murder hobos. Edgelords. Stuff that needs nipping in the bud, or sometimes it is time for the players to take a loss or two because they are getting too cocky and need to be reminded of their own mortality or its a suitably dramatic moment to take a loss. Likewise some players need to be forced to play the character they brought and now want killing off because its boring. Especially if it is the same bloody brain damaged/****** character design that licks everything and does stupid things because "muh low int" that they brought the last 4 times.
but I wouldn't want to play with a GM who wants to kill characters.
Murder GM's are bad and a blight on the community but read what I wrote above.
Really, it depends on the group. As a GM, I'd put my foot down because I like to keep my games generally to a PG-13 level
You are lucky your group accepts this.
, even in a private setting.
Meido RPG is Discord only, right?
And that's one thing that this does have to take into consideration, the comfort level of the different players.
Yes. And for the GM. Forget the players actually, the GM is key to the entire game. If the GM is uncomfortable then sod the players and whatever they want to run. Rocks fall, get out and roll something sensible.
Again, that goes back to the ultimate sanction for a player who continues to violate whatever consensus exists in the group as to content.
Not as easy as all that in most groups. You play at their house, they are a longtime friend or friend of a friend, other relationships make dealing with them awkward, etc.
-
It really boils down to the players. I have had groups that go dead silent when I queue them. I stare awkwardly for a minute, then feel bad for offering suggestions on possible actions they may take. I ask them if there's anything I can improve and they always answer "No, I'm having fun." I often feel I'm asking the sitcom question, "Does this dress make me look ugly?" and the players aren't expressing their feelings.
Then, in my current group, they have me describing half a city, an entire dinner menu, names of professors and students, as well as academic departments and who might've donated money to get buildings built on campus. The most Mech action they've had is one of the players using a Powerman to unload crates from a dropship. The sheer level of detail they love, and the fact that they just want to RP their characters based on all their AToW skills has been amazing. Perhaps they'd be good in a narrative game, but I think they enjoy testing my improvisational limits.
-
What support?
The corebook is not even out of beta yet.
The system that the game was made for appears to be dead or so back burner its domain lapsed.
And the still active version of the Cue system, SR:A only has one supporting book since 2016.
With the only plans for a clan sourcebook I don't see this support.
EVERY BattleTech product released is support for MWD, because every one includes backstory/stats which can be modded/maps/miniatures/scenarios already designed to fit the world of MWD. If that isn't support, I don't know what is.
As for Cosmic Patrol, I don't know enough about it to make any authoritative statements, but as all books released for it combined are thinner than AToW, I imagine it has just a bit less backstory and a much smaller interested population of gamers than the BT universe as a whole.
-
It really boils down to the players. I have had groups that go dead silent when I queue them. I stare awkwardly for a minute, then feel bad for offering suggestions on possible actions they may take. I ask them if there's anything I can improve and they always answer "No, I'm having fun." I often feel I'm asking the sitcom question, "Does this dress make me look ugly?" and the players aren't expressing their feelings.
Then, in my current group, they have me describing half a city, an entire dinner menu, names of professors and students, as well as academic departments and who might've donated money to get buildings built on campus. The most Mech action they've had is one of the players using a Powerman to unload crates from a dropship. The sheer level of detail they love, and the fact that they just want to RP their characters based on all their AToW skills has been amazing. Perhaps they'd be good in a narrative game, but I think they enjoy testing my improvisational limits.
I'm envious of your current group. That sounds like my group of longtime friends who ran an MW3 campaign with very little 'Mech combat, events in the campaign mainly being focused on life on the DropShip en route to contracts. Best BT RPG experience I've had to date. . . .
-
Aside: it occurs to me that a lot of rpg groups could save time and grief just talking honestly about what they want to get out of the group to begin with. A gaming DTR.
-
Aside: it occurs to me that a lot of rpg groups could save time and grief just talking honestly about what they want to get out of the group to begin with. A gaming DTR.
That depends on being open and honest in a group situation and a firm degree of self-awareness. Neither of those are a given and not even from That Guy either. Some people think they want a rules-lite, narrative experience and are willing to ignore signs they'd like something structured and crunchier. They don't know until they've invested the time, at which point it is probably too late to pull the GM aside.
-
Self-reflection really is a helpful skill. In every part of one's life.
MW:D actually could help with that, too. ;-)
-
ATOW isnt for everyone.
Destiny isnt for everyone.
And thats ok. The above should be accepted truth, and not a debatable flaw of either system. Itd be nice if everyone agreed on that so the discussion in here can be about what Destiny is, not what it isnt.
-
ATOW isnt for everyone.
Destiny isnt for everyone.
And thats ok. The above should be accepted truth, and not a debatable flaw of either system. Itd be nice if everyone agreed on that so the discussion in here can be about what Destiny is, not what it isnt.
Given that an RPG is only what you make out of it, i think we're gonna be continuing to argue over what it is not for a good while yet. >:D
-
Given that an RPG is only what you make out of it, i think we're gonna be continuing to argue over what it is not for a good while yet. >:D
Can we not? I'd like to read discussion on Destiny at it is, not the discussion of people trying to force it into another vein because they dont like Narrative games.
-
Can we not? I'd like to read discussion on Destiny at it is, not the discussion of people trying to force it into another vein because they dont like Narrative games.
In all seriousness, discussing narrative games is like teaching cats synchronized swimming. The virtues of playing them are entirely dependent on the group you have being good at roleplaying games, not the abstracted mechanics themselves.
-
EVERY BattleTech product released is support for MWD, because every one includes backstory/stats which can be modded/maps/miniatures/scenarios already designed to fit the world of MWD. If that isn't support, I don't know what is.
Although I don't technically disagree, compare (for instance) one of the old 2nd edition adventure modules to an equivalent pagecount of TRO entries. Very different products, very different kinds and levels of "support." Particularly when it comes to action outside of 'Mech combat.
Is there a particular kind of content that would make it easier for you to put a narrative gaming session together?
not the discussion of people trying to force it into another vein because they dont like Narrative games.
That isn't what's been happening. But instead of continuing the tangent by explaining it, I'll instead ask, do you have a particular question or observation about Destiny you do wish to see discussed?
-
What information is needed to roleplay a BattleTech game?
I know all the House and Handbook sourcebooks can fit in, but there are some basic that I think need to be included?
What is money? How do you pay for things? How do you steal it?
How do people communicate? How do you steal communications? Do people have phone numbers, emails addresses, or what do they call them? How likely are you to have instant communications with somewhere (within the same city, within the same world, between worlds)?
How do people travel? Within a city, within a world, between worlds.
How does nobility work? Are there legal restrictions on what non-nobility can do? How do you become nobility? If a noble accuses you of a crime, are you screwed?
How does law enforcement work? What are some laws that might get players in trouble? How can players be a part of law enforcement (deputize? or stuck as vigilantes?)
What's in a typccal house/apartment, office building, military base?
I know many of these will vary (the Davion Outback likely has different weapon regulations than New Avalon). But I think there are some basics questions about how to be in the BattleTech universe that would be helpful?
-
What information is needed to roleplay a BattleTech game?
I know all the House and Handbook sourcebooks can fit in, but there are some basic that I think need to be included?
Issues here comes from what era you want to play in because in general the books needed change based on the era.
What is money? How do you pay for things? How do you steal it?
Bout the same as today. Money is both paper and electronic (more paper outside the core worlds) in the Innersphere.
How do people communicate? How do you steal communications? Do people have phone numbers, emails addresses, or what do they call them? How likely are you to have instant communications with somewhere (within the same city, within the same world, between worlds)?
I would guess "skype type" communications on planet, And by HPG A/B for interstellar.
How do people travel? Within a city, within a world, between worlds.
Wheeled and hover transport for city travel (Check out Technical Readout Vehicle Annex).
Air or Suborbital for world travel. (See above)
Chartered Dropship for interstellar.
How does nobility work? Are there legal restrictions on what non-nobility can do? How do you become nobility? If a noble accuses you of a crime, are you screwed?
this one really depends on the house involved.
How does law enforcement work? What are some laws that might get players in trouble? How can players be a part of law enforcement (deputize? or stuck as vigilantes?)
What's in a typical house/apartment, office building, military base?
This seems to be the same as earth depending on the tech level of the planet.
So low tech levels will be more backwoods farming communities, where high-tech worlds will be like a high-tech version of New York.
I know many of these will vary (the Davion Outback likely has different weapon regulations than New Avalon). But I think there are some basics questions about how to be in the BattleTech universe that would be helpful?
That would be a general run down and can very between eras, but should be close.
P.S. @nckestrel
I know you where probably not looking for the answers but I felt it would be helpful to others that where. :thumbsup:
-
What information is needed to roleplay a BattleTech game?
I know all the House and Handbook sourcebooks can fit in, but there are some basic that I think need to be included?
What is money? How do you pay for things? How do you steal it?
How do people communicate? How do you steal communications? Do people have phone numbers, emails addresses, or what do they call them? How likely are you to have instant communications with somewhere (within the same city, within the same world, between worlds)?
How do people travel? Within a city, within a world, between worlds.
How does nobility work? Are there legal restrictions on what non-nobility can do? How do you become nobility? If a noble accuses you of a crime, are you screwed?
How does law enforcement work? What are some laws that might get players in trouble? How can players be a part of law enforcement (deputize? or stuck as vigilantes?)
What's in a typccal house/apartment, office building, military base?
I know many of these will vary (the Davion Outback likely has different weapon regulations than New Avalon). But I think there are some basics questions about how to be in the BattleTech universe that would be helpful?
How accessible are local governments? how accessible of planetary governments? which ones are in charge of what? how do they enforce trademarks, if at all?
what is a "normal" education, and howmuch does it vary from world to world?
how often does a normal person get to see a Battlemech? or any kind of 'mech, really?
How open and accessible is the local news? how controlled is it?
we could go on like this.....
-
So do weapon groups hit the same location?
-
So do weapon groups hit the same location?
I think so, it seems they may have borrowed a little from what you were trying to do! ;)
-
If they follow the Tactical Operations rules for Linked/Group Weapon Groups, roll locations separately for each weapon.
-
I'm envious of your current group. That sounds like my group of longtime friends who ran an MW3 campaign with very little 'Mech combat, events in the campaign mainly being focused on life on the DropShip en route to contracts. Best BT RPG experience I've had to date. . . .
Lightning in a bottle, really. The way they go into minute details with very little rolling seems more proper for a narrative game. So again, players.
-
I think so, it seems they may have borrowed a little from what you were trying to do! ;)
Huh?
-
So do weapon groups hit the same location?
Judging by the fact that 2 PPCs do a total of 7 damage, I'd say everything in one Weapon Group hits the same location.
-
Huh?
Your alt battletech rules
-
In all seriousness, discussing narrative games is like teaching cats synchronized swimming. The virtues of playing them are entirely dependent on the group you have being good at roleplaying games, not the abstracted mechanics themselves.
As long as a game has mechanics, we can discuss them. I would be highly interested in user's experiences with the dice mechanics, for example. Especially what they think of the highly flexible difficulty that comes from the GM rolling 2-4 d6. My first idea was: "Cool, that's a lot of randomness." My next one was: "Is this good or wouldn't I be fine with a less flexible approach like '4 / 7 / 11 + 1d6'?"
Also, I'm very much up to the players rolling all the dice. Make them deliver their doom themselves, so to speak. >:D I have dice in so many colors, mixing up the dice wouldn't be a problem. Especially if you combine both ideas and have them add only one Die of Destiny (i. e. the GM's die) which adds a fixed value depending on the difficulty I set.
And thirdly, the Die of Destiny explodes, if the GM expends a plot point after a '6' came up.
All of this is meant to create more stable results, while still having options for total mayhem.
-
Your alt battletech rules
They've had this stuff in the works long before it. It's... maybe slightly similar.
-
They've had this stuff in the works long before it. It's... maybe slightly similar.
Seems like you both were in heading in the same direction just taking different roads
-
I was having a conversation with Abou today... we were thinking, for the "fiction" presentation in Destiny (Dragon's Lair) how about splitting it up and adding in some player/gm narrative with the story as an example? I think this would be a good way to convey how the game is supposed to play.
-
I'd only be in favor of spreading out the fiction as examples. More than one story per rule book really makes looking up rules annoying.
-
I'd only be in favor of spreading out the fiction as examples. More than one story per rule book really makes looking up rules annoying.
It would be its own chapter. So you would have the fiction presented, but then say, a section in italic that depicts the interaction between the GM and Players. Like a break in the fiction before the important event happens. Then you get the rest of the book with the rules and such.
I think this would work great. It would show how Destiny is supposed to flow like a novel and give examples on how plot points should be used.
-
Then I'm behind the idea 100%! :thumbsup:
-
The more I read and reread the book, the more I like the system, but the more convinced I am that there needs to be a big effort to reorder the content.
I added a lot of comments through the official feedback form, including some of the points that others have made here, but I really do think that this system is a winner and will be a lot more approachable once some more gameplay examples are added and a few sections are shuffled around.
-
As long as AToW continues to receive support, I won't complain...
-
The more I read and reread the book, the more I like the system, but the more convinced I am that there needs to be a big effort to reorder the content.
I added a lot of comments through the official feedback form, including some of the points that others have made here, but I really do think that this system is a winner and will be a lot more approachable once some more gameplay examples are added and a few sections are shuffled around.
I have to agree with you there.
-
The more I read and reread the book, the more I like the system, but the more convinced I am that there needs to be a big effort to reorder the content.
I added a lot of comments through the official feedback form, including some of the points that others have made here, but I really do think that this system is a winner and will be a lot more approachable once some more gameplay examples are added and a few sections are shuffled around.
while reordering can help, sometimes you have sections with multiple dependencies that no matter the order have some disconnect here or there. That is something you get used to once you are familiar with the layout.
having gameplay examples though helps a lot, in any system. Sure, you cannot cover more than some standard cases, but it provides a feal for the system and simplifies using the rules. I liked the example a few pages before, although crossing IPs probably should be avoided (and if you have to, use Cthulhu ;) ).
This holds even more so for a collaborative system where everyone should have an idea how to run the game not just the GM.
-
Messing about with anydice I came up with the following odds of success for various total modifiers. It might be possible to go past -3 and +16 in extreme cases with multiple Traits and situational modifiers at the same time, but I figure I'm already reaching into the realm of edge cases expanding the table as far as I have:
Modifier Success Chance (%)
Easy Average Hard
-3 23.92 3.24 0.99
-2 33.56 5.88 1.97
-1 44.37 9.8 3.59
0 55.63 15.2 6.08
1 66.44 22.15 9.65
2 76.08 39.97 14.46
3 84.1 50 20.58
4 90.28 60.03 27.94
5 94.6 69.48 36.31
6 97.3 77.85 45.36
7 98.84 84.8 54.64
8 99.61 90.2 63.69
9 99.92 94.12 72.06
10 100 96.76 79.42
11 100 98.38 85.54
12 100 99.28 90.35
13 100 99.73 93.92
14 100 99.92 96.41
15 100 99.99 98.03
16 100 100 99.01
The results aren't anything massively shocking, but I generally like to do this to get an idea of how "competent" for want of a better word you can expect the PCs to be.
-
I was browsing the Ironwind Metals store today and saw that they had the House MechWarrior miniature packs for sale. Then it got me to wondering... are there any plans or would there be interest in making plays to release MechWarrior: Destiny miniatures? I think it'd be awesome to have more 25-28mm minis of generic or lore characters from the BattleTech universe to use for tabletop RPG sessions. Could really help make the RPG experience come alive. Maybe it would even put some of that new character art in the Destiny book to good use.
-
it should be noted that the old school ral partha mechwarrior minis were fan-financed and used pre-existing sculpts. i would imagine a line of MW:D minis would have to be similarly funded. IWM has pretty much abandoned any mini creation that isn't mechs apart from the occasional con exclusive, online exclusive, or a coordinated fan-financed effort due to very low interest
-
That's a shame, though it seems fan-financed stuff seems to be the way forward for now at least anyways until BattleTech picks up steam again in the local game store market. I'm sure it's partially due to the fact that there wasn't much of a system to use them with in the past (apart from the past MechWarrior RPG editions I suppose). But if they wanted to push Destiny as a thing, having some minis to go with it would be fantastic I think. I'd certainly buy a bunch of them up in a heartbeat.
EDIT: I should add too, it wouldn't have to be IWM doing it. In fact, I'd prefer them to be plastic like the new Mech Packs. Of course, that would almost certainly require a Kickstarter of its own I imagine to finance. Still... something to keep in mind that I'd personally love to see.
-
i would imagine a line of MW:D minis would have to be similarly funded.
Not necessarily. (https://store.catalystgamelabs.com/products/primer-runner-miniatures-preorder)
But no current plans that I'm aware of.
I should add too, it wouldn't have to be IWM doing it. In fact, I'd prefer them to be plastic like the new Mech Packs. Of course, that would almost certainly require a Kickstarter of its own I imagine to finance.
See above.
-
Not necessarily. (https://store.catalystgamelabs.com/products/primer-runner-miniatures-preorder)
But no current plans that I'm aware of.
See above.
That would be awesome to see plastic MechWarrior minis, if they decided to do it.
One question I have, just so long as you're in radar range :) … I had some tweak ideas on the beta I'd love o discuss, but don't know what the protocol would be on he forums. Would it be permitted to talk about them in Fan Designs, or as a closed beta is that completely off limits?
-
Not a contributor, but I do participate in a number of BETA test programs. They all have a private discussion board or forum; was one ever set up for MW:D, or was this intended to be a fully open BETA?
-
I had some tweak ideas on the beta I'd love o discuss, but don't know what the protocol would be on he forums. Would it be permitted to talk about them in Fan Designs, or as a closed beta is that completely off limits?
Not a contributor, but I do participate in a number of BETA test programs. They all have a private discussion board or forum; was one ever set up for MW:D, or was this intended to be a fully open BETA?
If I follow what you're asking, the closest thing to a private discussion board for the MW:D Closed Beta is probably the comment threads on Update #40, which included the links to the PDF and the Google Form for feedback.
However, as I've said upthread, the results of that Google Form are what I'm using to collect, organize, and present feedback for developer and management review. While I assume you're free to post your thoughts here on the forums or wherever else, the Google Form is what I'm looking at. There's just too much other internet for me to try to collate each and every piece of feedback not submitted via the method management requested.
FWIW: Earlier this morning, we surpassed 250 individual submissions to that form - some people wrote one omnibus submission with all their feedback, some broke out their feedback with one note per submission, so it's much more than 250 individual notes. The feedback itself has run the full gamut of specificity (and usefulness) from very particular rules interactions that we hadn't thought of but do need to address, to "this system is trash, the end."
-
Just to further the point home: the only thing the developers will be looking at is the feedback provided by the google form provided in the Kickstarter. Thanks.
-
Just to further the point home: the only thing the developers will be looking at is the feedback provided by the google form provided in the Kickstarter. Thanks.
Not so much for dev feedback but to discuss tweaks and hacks with other players, like "guys I have a cool idea". I wasn't sure if that's permitted.
-
The more I read and reread the book, the more I like the system, but the more convinced I am that there needs to be a big effort to reorder the content.
I had the opposite feeling...the more I read through it, the less I liked.
Some nice concepts and ideas to be sure but it isn't a system I will be using, there is again far too much trying to duplicate the board game which eats up huge amounts of space unnecessarily and so on.
I'll probably still buy a copy but the last thing a MW RPG needed was yet another MW generator and fragmentation. It now has five RPG systems, all of which have good points and bad points but none of which have really taken off in the way the universe deserves.
But - that's my opinion. Hopefully it'll work out.
-
I took one look at the chargen for AToW and said "nope".
Yeah the attempt to use, but without the dicerolls, the MW3 pathways is a bit wonky. But you can just ignore it and use a XP based generation.
-
Which is provided in the ATOW Companion. When ATOW is reprinted (no idea when), it’ll be a revised volume that incorporates that directly.
-
Actually, "Points-Only Character Creation" is on page 51 of AToW, not the Companion.
-
Then I stand corrected: When ATOW is reprinted (no idea when), it’ll be a revised volume that incorporates point buy creation as the standard method, along with other elements added from the Companion.
-
Then I stand corrected: When ATOW is reprinted (no idea when), it’ll be a revised volume that incorporates point buy creation as the standard method, along with other elements added from the Companion.
The thing I liked about the life paths was that you're more likely to create a "real" character rather than min/maxed perfection, but the math was a huge pain. What if the life path's math was just replaced with just minimums and maximums? Like if you took noble you'd have a minimum of 100 XP in wealth, but a max of 25 XP in labor skills. Like before, mins and maxes are only for when your character is finished.
-
Then I stand corrected: When ATOW is reprinted (no idea when), it’ll be a revised volume that incorporates point buy creation as the standard method, along with other elements added from the Companion.
I like ATOW, but I also think it did a lot wrong. Embracing the lifepath system was one of those mistakes. Which is difficult to admit, because I like it....but it is overly complex and, IMO, takes up far too much room and page count.
-
The developers of ATOW unfortunately came to a similar conclusion soon after it was released, but never had a chance to put out a revised version.
If you’ve got other thoughts, may as well spill ‘em now.
-
The modules take up less page count than the fiction, and as DarkSpade said, it's hard to beat as a system for organically creating a character that fits in the universe. I built a spreadsheet to help with the math, as have others, and I saw at least one attempt to make a Java app to do the same. As for other thoughts, that's what the link in my sig block is for...
-
Yeah I do feel like I dropped the ball on a lot of stuff back during the beta in issuing recommendations for alterations while there was a chance to change a few things.
My big ones not related to that is how Wealth and Equipped are separate, discreet traits when both would be determined by the character's social strata, military rank, or position in a crime syndicate.
I do have some more specific thoughts on that I'd be glad to share if so desired.
Likewise Property as a trait feels really under developed as far as having good guidelines to determine the nature of the Property and the kind of resources it would provide the player.
And kind of related to all of that the guidelines for establishing how good at their jobs any NPC underlings of the PC are at their jobs is certainly lacking.
With the final trail of all this ending with the whole neofudalistic staple of Battletech being such a big part of the setting there are still a lot of elements of that which are poorly developed even through the Companion. Especially in regards to what exactly happens if a Player Character winds up having a high enough landed title that he has vassals?
-
Especially in regards to what exactly happens if a Player Character winds up having a high enough landed title that he has vassals?
Let the player create characters for those vassals, and play these instead.
-
Let the player create characters for those vassals, and play these instead.
The main problem with that answer is it goes against the spirit of Battletech in general.
The secondary problem is it circles back around to one of my points about the neofeudalism in Battletech being poorly developed/explained.
As in it would make Title above 1 pointless depending on your interpretations of what we have available about Battletechs neofeudal titles.
Considering how much of a core principle of Battletech neofeudalism is I have trouble closing off GM and player access to it if they want such campaigns.
I know it is a certain kind of heresy to suggest that not all campaigns have to be focused on the big giant stompy robots but there are other kinds of stories to tell and AToW does probably the best job of supporting these other stories of all the available systems but there certainly needs some work done to fully answer some of these questions.
-
A big problem there is that the setting itself barely supports the concept. Every army is treated like a professional army of volunteers. Regiments should be made up 100% out of the troops of Baron Random, who is committing them to the fight because of loyalty, personal gain, or because Count Someone has pressured him in to it.
You get whiffs of this with with the Skye separatists, but that's about it. Even Drac Warlords aren't independent enough, and every other split in the Inner Sphere is along nationalistic lines.
You have no MechWarriors pining about their obligations to their liege lords. You have no real pressure between the monarch and his vassals. It just doesn't happen on any level in any meaningful way.
Which is a shame.
-
A big problem there is that the setting itself barely supports the concept. Every army is treated like a professional army of volunteers. Regiments should be made up 100% out of the troops of Baron Random, who is committing them to the fight because of loyalty, personal gain, or because Count Someone has pressured him in to it.
You get whiffs of this with with the Skye separatists, but that's about it. Even Drac Warlords aren't independent enough, and every other split in the Inner Sphere is along nationalistic lines.
You have no MechWarriors pining about their obligations to their liege lords. You have no real pressure between the monarch and his vassals. It just doesn't happen on any level in any meaningful way.
Which is a shame.
*nod*
The thing that astonishes me is how much of a big deal/the center piece of Battletech is the neofeudalistic aspect of it despite what you say being entirely too true.
Despite Battletech moving away from neofeudalism as one of it's core concepts it is still a pretty important core concept in my opinion, especially during certain eras.
Yet my comments about it being very poorly developed/explained hold true even during those eras.
So I guess the question becomes at what title level do players have to start worrying about having vassals?
Most classical feudal systems would put that at anything above Knight but I grant Battletech doesn't have to be beholden to any classical system and even if it were there are a lot of variations it can choose from.
-
Monbvol, don't forget it takes at least 300 XP for Title to matter. Vassals don't even enter the picture until 500 XP. That kind of limits player investment.
-
As I stated that depends on the variation being used and under English Feudalism it is at least debatable that Squires are vassals of Knights which is a non-inheritable title under that system but to be fair I'm not clear enough on that title to know where I'd put it on the AToW table and as stated it can be argued if Squires should be considered vassals or not as the research I'm looking at doesn't break down the Knight title like Battletech does.
Ultimately though I still stand by my two points of we don't know enough about the various neofeudal systems that Battletech uses and I don't like the idea of invalidating campaign and character concepts in this way when neofeudalism is such a big part of the setting, at least during certain eras.
-
Vassalage is certainly debatable, but whatever it turns out to be, given that it takes a minimum of 300 XP to even ask the question, I wouldn't expect too much trouble.
-
I do accept it seems to be a catch 22 in many ways.
Players are not going to be inclined to invest that kind of XP on something that as it exists now is largely nothing but an XP sink/tax but the only way to change that is to put a lot of effort into defining/explaining the neofeudal system of Battletech and giving much better guidelines than what exist now about what it does for your character and the kind of resources it provides. I say this fully aware of what is presented in the Companion.
Personally I find Rank is in a very similar situation as it is one of the things my group consistently avoids as much as possible as even with what is presented in the Companion it is such a huge XP sink/tax for too little return.
But that is why a fair portion of my house rules exist the way they are currently.
-
Makes sense to me!
-
The modules take up less page count than the fiction, and as DarkSpade said, it's hard to beat as a system for organically creating a character that fits in the universe. I built a spreadsheet to help with the math, as have others, and I saw at least one attempt to make a Java app to do the same. As for other thoughts, that's what the link in my sig block is for...
I appreciate what it is trying to do but there are just so many options that are needed to provide that flexibility that page count suffers.
Is it worth it? I'd like to say "yes"....but in truth, while it can be fun to spend hours creating your character, the same thing could be done with a sensible points based system followed by the "20 Questions" a player should answer to flesh out his characters background. Add in sensible restrictions and limits and you should be able to develop a fleshed put character in a fraction of the time.
And do do without the complexity, or even apparent complexity, that can deter new players. That you built a spreadsheet is commendable...but that one is needed is a sign of something very wrong.
A character should be as simple as choosing era, faction, sub faction and role. Each of which adds points to the base builds skills and attributes and then fleshed out by spending XP.
It might even be beneficial to simply divide all costs by a factor of ten...players build characters with 40 points, or 45 or 50.
-
The developers of ATOW unfortunately came to a similar conclusion soon after it was released, but never had a chance to put out a revised version.
If you’ve got other thoughts, may as well spill ‘em now.
I already have...elsewhere.
But a short list?
Character creation is too complex,too math heavy, too intimidating
Too much reliance on modifiers
The combat system needs updating and clarifying. Destinys concept of personal and mech scale is good, but could benefit from a support scale in between.
2D6 does not offer sufficient granularity in a roll for an RPG.
There is still a heavy bias towards using the RPG to recreate the TTB game rules. Again, a huge waste of space IMO. If players want mechs, direct them to the board game otherwise generic vehicle rules and the realisation that the best option PCs have when faced with Mechs is to run as that is a legitimate instakill scenario. Destiny falls into this trap as well...there is a lot of space given to a combat situation that shouldn't occur.
But there's no easy way to fix those issues without a rebuild of the game. But revamping the chargen and fixing the layout will do a lot of good
-
2nd edition was like that, and it resulted in cookie cutter characters. Because if you didn't color inside the lines of the cookie cutter, your gunnery and piloting were abysmal. 3rd edition went too far the other way, and throwing dice rolls into the mix meant you could end up with OG Traveler problems like death during character creation, which just made the process longer.
Sure it takes time, but the life module system is worth retaining, even if it becomes the "optional" method.
And seriously, if page count is an issue, the fiction should be the first stuff over the transom. People who want fiction buy novels. People who want rules buy rule books. If the company wants to hook new players with fiction, put it in the free downloadable stuff, not the $50 RULE books.
EDIT:Talen5000 posted while I was writing this, and I'll respond to that separately...
-
Ok, first off, AToW is the BATTLETECH RPG. That means a few things. 2d6 is the sine qua non because that's how the base game plays. And any linkages to the tabletop are fully justified because it exists to support the base game, not the other way around. Of COURSE unprotected people should run away from 'mechs. That doesn't mean there should be no rules for some maniac who wants to stand their ground. The chances of those maniacs pulling off anything significant is vanishingly small, but fun for some players. Let 'em have it, I say.
Character creation is not "too" complex. It's more complex than some players would prefer, sure. But it's manageable, and the point-buy system is right there in the AToW rule book (on page 51) for anyone that feels that way.
I'm not really sure what "too much reliance on modifiers" means. At worst, AToW uses one or two more than table top play.
-
2nd edition was like that, and it resulted in cookie cutter characters. Because if you didn't color inside the lines of the cookie cutter, your gunnery and piloting were abysmal. 3rd edition went too far the other way, and throwing dice rolls into the mix meant you could end up with OG Traveler problems like death during character creation, which just made the process longer.
Sure it takes time, but the life module system is worth retaining, even if it becomes the "optional" method.
And seriously, if page count is an issue, the fiction should be the first stuff over the transom. People who want fiction buy novels. People who want rules buy rule books. If the company wants to hook new players with fiction, put it in the free downloadable stuff, not the $50 RULE books.
Fiction is definitely a lower priority than rules...
So long as those rules work.
The lifepath chargen system is too complex,too time consuming and too intimidating towards new players and while it does avoid the cookie cutter build, there are ways around this that don't require life paths.
So while fiction does have a lower priority, I would argue that the disadvantages of the lifepath system outweigh the advantages. When you have players feeling the need to create spreadsheets and the writers need to put in alternate character generation systems then something is wrong with that aspect.
And therefore character generation needs to be fixed.
Unfortunately, the simplest way to fix this is to remove the Life path system entirely. Whether or not the RPG should retain lifepaths as a separate generation mechanic is a matter for debate, but I would argue no.
-
The line developer has already fairly clearly stated that point buy will be the "default' method for any reprint, and I'm willing to concede that. But the life module system is far and away the best I've ever seen at creating characters that organically fit into the universe. Straight point-buy risks driving players down the 2nd edition path of Gunnery, Piloting, Vehicle, and throw those last few points in something interesting. Life modules at least give you an idea of what "interesting" looks like.
-
Ok, first off, AToW is the BATTLETECH RPG. That means a few things. 2d6 is the sine qua non because that's how the base game plays.
Which doesn't make my point that 2D6 isn't a good choice for an RPG invalid. Just that it is unlikely to be fixed.
And any linkages to the tabletop are fully justified because it exists to support the base game, not the other way around. Of COURSE unprotected people should run away from 'mechs. That doesn't mean there should be no rules for some maniac who wants to stand their ground.
You don't need a dozen pages to provide the rule "He dies".
Keeping it short and simple...BT RPGs have a bad habit of trying to recreate the board game. This, IMO, is bad. It is trying to redo something already done and which is beyond the scale at which an RPG works. Mech scale combat should be directed to use the board game, or directed to use the generic vehicle combat rules because in any Mech vs PC scenario, the PC runs or dies. But we don't need to know that a Clan ERPPC does 225D6 damage or that the Zeus Heavy carried by the PC does zero to the Mech.
The RPG is...should be...focussed on personal scale combat. Because otherwise it falls into the trap of simply creating characters for pilots. Mech combat is important for the universe, but there isn't any real need to try and recreate the board game using RPG rules.
Character creation is not "too" complex. It's more complex than some players would prefer, sure. But it's manageable, and the point-buy system is right there in the AToW rule book (on page 51) for anyone that feels that way
That there are two separate chargen mechanics in the book is not something that strikes me as a sign of success.
That you have a system that players feel obliged to create spreadsheets for assistance is not a good idea.
A character generation system which deters players from buying or even trying the game because it is too complex, too math heavy is a bad thing.
That it is a system which creates non cookie cutter PCs is good...but, to me, not a good enough reason to retain the lifepath system. The point based system, with suitable guidance and limitations as part of the rules, should work well as the game standard. And, in that case, there is no need to retain the lifepath system at all.
That is simply my opinion. Yours differs.
-
The line developer has already fairly clearly stated that point buy will be the "default' method for any reprint, and I'm willing to concede that. But the life module system is far and away the best I've ever seen at creating characters that organically fit into the universe. Straight point-buy risks driving players down the 2nd edition path of Gunnery, Piloting, Vehicle, and throw those last few points in something interesting. Life modules at least give you an idea of what "interesting" looks like.
Again, I'm not saying the LifePath system doesn't have advantages.
Just that the cost in time, complexity, attractiveness to new players, etc aren't worth it.
-
How many pages do you think "suitable guidance and limitations" would take? The life path system is 31. And as far as "more than one system", D&D has had multiple ways of doing character generation for decades and seems to be the most "successful" game on the market.
And the Tactical Combat Addendum? That's all of 20 pages (compared to 30 for personal combat), with an additional 6 for Special Pilot Abilities, which people seem to like. And a chunk of those 20 pages are focused on Battle Armor interactions vice 'mech. And right at the beginning of that section is another one of those "Choose your complexity" boxes that gives a few paragraphs of a simpler way to do it (if you like making EDG rolls). One thing I think they did wrong was flip the modifiers between AToW and table top. I suspect that might be the heart of your earlier comment about modifiers. The argument I recall being put forth at the time was "other RPGs do it this way, so AToW should too". I argued my initial point above: this is the BattleTech RPG, emphasis on the first word, not the second.
One other point before I forget: they deliberately dropped Attribute modifiers when converting AToW skills to table top (specifically Gunnery and Piloting, but it applies to things like Sensor Operations too). As I understand it, it was an attempt to prevent negative Gunnery scores (like you could get with 2nd Edition). I think Attributes should matter, personally.
-
How many pages do you think "suitable guidance and limitations" would take?
"No character can start with a skill level greater than 4 (5 for Clan characters) in any skill" is one sentence
SRs 20 questions takes up a page and can be used either before character generation, to provide a concept, or after to flesh one out.
And the Tactical Combat Addendum? That's all of 20 pages
Twenty pages that, for the most part, aren't needed.The rules are there to "RPGify" the board game and that isn't necessary or even desireable. Battlefield scale battles are not usually the remit of RPGs which are more focussed on persoanl scale conflicts. As such, such conflicts are best served by using the existing ruleset....the actual tabletop game.
Is there any reason for the infantry conhesion rules, for example? No. There isn't. While there is value in providing a degree of integration between the game and RPG, there is much less benefit or even need in trying to recreate the boardgame. A PC placed in a tank or Mech needs only his piloting and gunnery skills. A leader in charge of a lance or star needs his Tactics skill for initiative. In short, the game takes 20 pages to replicate a conversion table and this has been a major failing of every MW based RPG created.
That personal combat in ATOW takes up 31 pages is irrelevent...it is necessary. But even then, there is quite a lot that IMO, an RPG doe NOT need and which could be removed. Squad and team initiative have their palce - but how many RPG groups have the recommended ten players where it becomes useful? IME, anything above 6 or 7 becomes unwieldy and time consuming.
Those 20 odd pages that try to replicate Total Warfare would be far better off appropriated for a more RPG focussed vehicle combat system. rather than the halfway house spread between the Tactical Addendum and Personal Combat that we have now. Shdowrun spends all of 4 pages on vehicular combat. Four. Seven if you include the rules for driivng. ATOW devotes thirty to a Tactical Addendum that tries to replicate the board game. And for an RPG that isn't necessary, nor (IMO) is it esepcially desireable. PC vs Mech should result in dead PC and very little else if the PC doesn't run away and you don't need 20 pages to describe that.
As it is, I think it a huge waste of space to include. You do not. So, I'm not going to devote much more energy or go into any more detail on this. I agree that the fiction should be the first to go in any issue affecting page count...but only to fit in an RPG. The Lifepath system and Tactical addendum are both massive wastes of space(IMO) that would be better used for more attractive or more RPG focussed material. I think the focus on Mech combat has been a major failing for MW RPG ever since MW 1st Edn so that may be colouring my appreciation for the rules here. For similar reasons, I think the entire section in Destiny also should be cut, though Destiny also has the problem that it creates yet another RPG system to support. But it does have some nice concepts - as I said, formalising the scale between Personal and Mech is a nice touch, but one that (IMO) doesn't go far enough. The system could benefit from the addition of a Support scale, to add that level of granularity to cover all the various vehicles and weapons and materials.
-
And is arguably incomplete. MW3 ended up with lifepaths scattered throughout several books
Which were eventually combined into book before switching to A Time of War, IIRC
-
The Tactical Addendum is 26 pages total, and 6 of that is the Special Pilot Abilities I mentioned before. The other 4 might be fiction. And as I mentioned before a good chunk of that 20 pages is actually Battle Armor focused. Are you suggesting that a single suit of BA (or PA(L) even) should shift an entire encounter to table top rules? ???
-
The Tactical Addendum is 26 pages total, and 6 of that is the Special Pilot Abilities I mentioned before. The other 4 might be fiction. And as I mentioned before a good chunk of that 20 pages is actually Battle Armor focused. Are you suggesting that a single suit of BA (or PA(L) even) should shift an entire encounter to table top rules? ???
No...I am saying there are ways to bring in units into the game without devoting thirty pages to recreating what has already been created.
For example....
Personal Scale weapons vs the BattleArmour? No damage.
Support Scale Weaponry vs the BattleArmour? Can do damage.
How much damage? Do you want to treat BA armour as mech style ablative?.
Then your support weapons needs the "Anti-Mech Weapion" feature so your PC, who is lucky enough to have an infantry scale LRM system which just so happens to have the AMW feature at rating 1 does 1 point of Mech scale damage to the BA suit if it hits. Another ten like that and the suit is gone.
There are other mechanics, including the use of Armour Penetration rules that likewise could also substitute and which wouldn't take up thirty pages.
But a BA suit is the upper end of what PCs in an RPG should be expected to face because once you start bringing in Mechs, PCs should move to the tabletop game because if they aren't in a Mech they should be running.
There is no reason to effectively create a new combat system for the board game which, to a large degree, is what the tactical addendum is doing.
It is, IMO, a waste of space, time and effort because the core rulebook is not the place for such rules. Even if they were desirable, the place for them would be in some form of Tactical Combat Sourcebook.
ATOW needs a vehicular combat system that doesn't refer to Total War or the board game. It doesn't need to redo the board game.
-
A parallel vehicular combat system would require even more page count to convert to the tabletop, whether its in AToW or not.
-
To clarify what I was saying earlier, I don't think the life path system needs or even should be a method of character creation. Just do point buy. The life path method should be a method of guidance for character creation that a GM could choose to require players to use.
Earlier parts (faction, childhood) should mainly be minimums you have to reach by the time you're done. For example, a character playing a Lyran should have a minimum of X points in Protocol/Lyran. If that same character takes an early childhood of Street, then they should also need a min of X points in Streetwise/Lyran. There could be some maxes at this point, but they'd be rare(probably more common for clanners)
Later parts (higher education, adulthood) would also have minimums, but would probably start seeing more maxes. For example, some professions would probably put a cap on wealth.
Naturally at some point you're going to end up with someone who has a min and max for something that's mathematically impossible to meet, like a min of 200 and a max of 100 in the same trait. In this instance, the GM would then decide which of the restrictions to overrule based on the player's background story for the character. The GM could also choice to split the difference and say the player's min and max is now 150(though I'd discourage splitting personally)
-
That sounds like a recipe for trouble. And the min/max stuff was what the 3rd edition thresholds were about.
-
A parallel vehicular combat system would require even more page count to convert to the tabletop, whether its in AToW or not.
You don't need a system to convert to the tabletop - you need a vehicular combat system that is suitable for an RPG. IF that requires a bigger page count than removing those 30 pages provides, then there are savings that could be made elsewhere and yes, fiction that can be removed.
The key issue here is that the RPG should be designed and created AS an RPG and not as a way to put named characters into the Mech cockpit. Having twenty or thirty pages devoted to needless and wasteful rules for integration into a different games, having the same for a needlessly complicated chargen system - that is about 60 pages there that could be put to better use expanding on the systems a RPG actully needs.
I'll go further and state there is even more fat that could be trimmed, more sections that could be improved, creating room for greater depth in other areas. Combat is one area, as is skill resolution. Some of the traits and skills could be reduced, removed, reworked.
CGL, FASA, FanPro have shown they can make decent RPGs. But they have (again, IMO) continually failed with the MW series. And part of the reason (again, IMO) is that they try too hard to recreate the board game and its feel. Too many modifers, too much math and too much trying to provide overly complicated systems that do nothing but rewrite what already works.
Each iteration of the MWRPG has nice concepts. I like the Lifepth system. But I've come across too many players who take one look at it and walk away simply because it looks too complicated. And being honest - it is complicated. I am still not sure if I am doing it right
CGL would be better served by allocating each new character 40 Build Points rather than 4000XP and then implementing a points based system. For all that people say MW2 was a munchkin sytem - it was also FUN and easy to play. Definitely flawed though. A starting character should not start with a -1 TN Gunnery.
But - you know what? It was fun and that -1TN to Gunnery didn't help when the GM took us on a mission that involved more investigation and personal combat.
Which is another issue....too many of the various scenarios published by FASA etc have been little more than Mech based scenario packs.Sure, Mech combat is important in the BTU but it is being overemphasised in the RPG.
Players don't learn to avoid cookie cutter builds if the GM keeps them them cookie cutter campaigns.
ATOW is over 400 pages long. 32 pages of that is fiction. 26 pages of that is the Tactical Addendum.30 pages to Lifepaths. A total of 88 pages that do nothing for the RPG....and of those, the fiction provides flavour and a feel for the universe. There is more that could be cut or reworded. Half the problem with the lifepath system is the poor layout but even revamping that won't solve all the issues.
But repurposing even just those 50 or 80 pages would allow for other sections to be fleshed out and expanded. Does the lifepath system provdie enough benefit to justify keeping it? I don't think so. Does the game require anything in the tactical addendum system? No...it needs a more fleshed out combat system but it doesn't need a Total War rewrite. It needs an RPG that treats the board game as it comes and drops the overly complicated conversion systems.
The BTU could be a wonderful place for an RPG. But it needs an RPG that is developed AS an RPG. Not as a sideshow. And there is too much in ATOW that relies upon the boardgame.
-
There are plenty of reasons to break out Mechs in an RPG setting, both from the players as pilots and on the ground. Riot control. Stealing Mechs from a hanger (one of the first Twilight of the Clans novels, if memory serves). Leaving a downed Mech in the middle of a battle.
-
*snip*
The key issue here is that the RPG should be designed and created AS an RPG...
*snip*
And THAT"s why we disagree. And should probably agree to do so. That fundamental issue (and I don't think a MORE fundamental one exists) is what drove CGL to do many of the things they did that I agree with that you don't. Of course, they did a lot of things I don't agree with (some of which you don't either). But I can honestly say I can see no way for either of us to convince the other coming from the two points of view we do. Opposite poles and all that.
-
*nod*
AToW is the best offering we've gotten from anyone for a true RPG for Battletech as you can play someone who will never step foot in a mech and still have plenty of frameworks to use to create an interesting story.
Module I've always considered not complex. Daunting and overwhelming for those that don't have good organizational skills absolutely. Mine aren't that great but even without a spreadsheet I tend to be able to create characters in less time than MW3's system. The only reason it's taken me more than an hour without the aide of a spreadsheet to create a character is because of decision paralysis or my friends distracting me.
Tactical combat isn't trying to recreate the tabletop to me either. I'd call it more of an attempt at Battletroops or Citytech than trying to do Total Warfare.
But yeah I tend to agree something needs to get cut to keep the book small enough to be financially viable and give room to expand on other fundamental concepts that should be in the main book and not the companion.
-
Case in point: the character I just created for a campaign has five level 5 skills, none of which are 'mech related. I'll grant Gunnery and Piloting are level 4 skills, but those level 5 skills grew organically out of the character's background, and will make him a fine mercenary commander (Leadership, Negotiation, Protocol/Mercenary, Perception, and Small Arms, in case you were wondering).
-
There are plenty of reasons to break out Mechs in an RPG setting, both from the players as pilots and on the ground. Riot control. Stealing Mechs from a hanger (one of the first Twilight of the Clans novels, if memory serves).
Stealing a mech from the hangar was a sub-plot of the very first GDL trilogy.
-
That still involves mechs as a major focus though.
-
That sounds like a recipe for trouble. And the min/max stuff was what the 3rd edition thresholds were about.
How so? You should end up with a similar character that you would get from the life modules now, only without needing a spread sheet.
-
Every GM will have a different view of the rule... there would be very little consistency, and that's bad for a game system.
-
No different from any other time a RPG rules system hits a snag. In the end the GM always has final say regardless.
-
True, but if you can avoid creating those snags in design, so much the better. That's basically what we're discussing here.
-
Stealing Mechs from a hanger (one of the first Twilight of the Clans novels, if memory serves).
Hell, at least one of the published MechWarrior 2nd edition scenarios has a scene where you're stealing mechs.
-
Yet more support for the emphasis being on the first word of "BattleTech RPG"...
-
There are plenty of reasons to break out Mechs in an RPG setting, both from the players as pilots and on the ground. Riot control. Stealing Mechs from a hanger (one of the first Twilight of the Clans novels, if memory serves). Leaving a downed Mech in the middle of a battle.
There is a difference between including Mechs in an RPG session and replicating the board game.
-
No argument there, but the emphasis should be on integrating the two, not building each on its own.
-
And THAT"s why we disagree.
Perhaps.
But if all you want is an adjunct to the board game, then you don't need ATOW, or Destiny, or MW at all. There is no need to develop an RPG if you don't create an RPG
If you want an RPG, then the game should be designed as an RPG, and that means the Tactical Addendum section is largely unnecessary.
-
How perfect of a circle does this discussion have to become before you guys call it good?
-
I'm willing to call it good here (on opposite ends of a diameter), but I didn't start the thread, so the mods won't end it on my say so.
-
No need to end the thread, you guys just seemed to be saying the same thing each post with no progress.
-
My main thought is that in a crowded RPG market place if you want one for Battletech to stand out you need to build it for Battletech.
To me that does mean the system does need to be flexible enough that you can run a campaign where mechs are set dressing at best but can integrate seemlessly with a more focused on the individual PCs than Total Warfare tends to allow combat system that if you want can be carried even further into a full blown Total Warfare game.
Now to be fair from what I've seen of Destiny's attempt of that particular aspect of an intermediary combat system that probably would be the better seed to grow from than the Tactical Combat Addendum.
-
I think any suggestions are contingent on TPB’s overall vision for the rules. Do they want:
1) a system that exists within the BTU, but not necessarily interconnected with other rules
2) a system that is meant to integrate with the scale chain from AToW to ISaW
3) something else
Otherwise we’re just pitching our own rulebooks
-
No argument there, but the emphasis should be on integrating the two, not building each on its own.
Personally, I would say that is a problematic approach when creating a RPG.
The game types are just to different to interface them in an ergonomic fashion and still do both sides justice, in particular for Battletech with its high detail focus.
It adds just too many limitations on the RPG creation process and adds too many details on the wrong elements.
It may be a good approach if you see the RPG as an extended campaign mode for the board game, but that is a limitation for a standalone RPG product.
However I have to agree with Sartris, the points argued here are not bugs to be fixed they are design decision and those depend on the objective of the product.
-
Personally, I would say that is a problematic approach when creating a RPG.
The game types are just to different to interface them in an ergonomic fashion and still do both sides justice, in particular for Battletech with its high detail focus.
It adds just too many limitations on the RPG creation process and adds too many details on the wrong elements.
It may be a good approach if you see the RPG as an extended campaign mode for the board game, but that is a limitation for a standalone RPG product.
However I have to agree with Sartris, the points argued here are not bugs to be fixed they are design decision and those depend on the objective of the product.
I know I decided to skip Destiny based off what I read of the design decisions. I think that the best decision they could have made would have been to really just focus on Mechwarriors themselves, and doing expansions for support classes, or other elements of life, almost like how the old Dark Heresy system worked for 40k.
Mechwarrior: The RPG, should just be a system designed to enhance the main game, or attach itself to BT / Alpha Strike, for Mechwarriors. Yea, Aerospace Pilots, Agents, Tankers, ect, lose out but that's all very niche in the main setting.
Doing as they are with Destiny... just meh. It's not a product made for me, which is fine, but it also means it's not a product I'll buy.
-
..
Mechwarrior: The RPG, should just be a system designed to enhance the main game, or attach itself to BT / Alpha Strike, for Mechwarriors. Yea, Aerospace Pilots, Agents, Tankers, ect, lose out but that's all very niche in the main setting.
...
but then you don't have to be surprised if it stays a niche product as a RPG. ;)
-
The 'mech combat system presented in Destiny is hopelessly broken. That's been covered elsewhere, though.
-
but then you don't have to be surprised if it stays a niche product as a RPG. ;)
I've got a spoiler for you.
Mechwarrior RPG's are going to be a niche product regardless. I don't expect Destiny to blow-up into a major release. I think it'll flounder like most post-90's Battletech RPG's. :|
-
I've got a spoiler for you.
Mechwarrior RPG's are going to be a niche product regardless. I don't expect Destiny to blow-up into a major release. I think it'll flounder like most post-90's Battletech RPG's. :|
oh sure, but the point is, if you limit the focus to basically being a board game addon it is designed to fail as a standalone RPG product. ;)
and Destiny still has too much of that so I don't expect a too different outcome.
-
oh sure, but the point is, if you limit the focus to basically being a board game addon it is designed to fail as a standalone RPG product. ;)
and Destiny still has too much of that so I don't expect a too different outcome.
I'd only say, that Dark Heresy did very well, and is a good game (even if its not an add on) because it narrows focus on different groups to play, rather than being a catch-all.
-
If CGL had the resources and market share to do the same thing that wouldn't be a terrible idea to emulate.
-
If CGL had the resources and market share to do the same thing that wouldn't be a terrible idea to emulate.
It becomes a question of, if you can't make a product that will satisfy a large portion of your audience, or won't capture a new audience, then why are you making it in the first place?
-
Just because something works for Games Workshop doesn't mean CGL can do it nor should CGL shouldn't try to put out an RPG since there is obvious demand for one just because it might be different.
-
Just because something works for Games Workshop doesn't mean CGL can do it nor should CGL shouldn't try to put out an RPG since there is obvious demand for one just because it might be different.
That's not what I said.
I am saying that I don't see who Mechwarrior: Destiny, appeals to, as a product from its inception. That's a problem. Yes, some people here may have enjoyed it, but it's not going to capture a new audience, and it doesn't feed its traditional audience enough, to justify its creation.
-
If CGL had the resources and market share to do the same thing that wouldn't be a terrible idea to emulate.
limited resources is a good point.
From that perspective using all the synergies in terms of previous work and customer base is quite helpful.
Another advantage of keeping a strong mech(warrior) focus is that it basically in itself can provide the Battletech theme/flair to the product.
Without that you have to invest a lot more man hours to give it the character of a Battletech RPG and not just a generic SciFi RPG.
...
I am saying that I don't see who Mechwarrior: Destiny, appeals to, as a product from its inception. That's a problem. Yes, some people here may have enjoyed it, but it's not going to capture a new audience, and it doesn't feed its traditional audience enough, to justify its creation.
I agree it might be too much of a compromise - we probably won't agree on which side of the compromise it should put more focus. ;)
-
That's not what I said.
I am saying that I don't see who Mechwarrior: Destiny, appeals to, as a product from its inception. That's a problem. Yes, some people here may have enjoyed it, but it's not going to capture a new audience, and it doesn't feed its traditional audience enough, to justify its creation.
1. There are people reporting that they like Mechwarrior: Destiny. Based off this comment I feel safe in saying: Just because it doesn't appeal to you, or myself to be honest, doesn't mean Mechwarrior: Destiny will be a failure.
2. Mechwarrior: Destiny is still in beta and not fully live. So it may change some things.
3. I've been talking in terms of a revised A Time of War that Adrian has hinted at being in the works since his latest comment in this thread. So there may be some confusion going on here.
Which I raise a point of order maybe a thread split would be wise.
-
1. There are people reporting that they like Mechwarrior: Destiny. Based off this comment I feel safe in saying: Just because it doesn't appeal to you, or myself to be honest, doesn't mean Mechwarrior: Destiny will be a failure.
2. Mechwarrior: Destiny is still in beta and not fully live. So it may change some things.
3. I've been talking in terms of a revised A Time of War that Adrian has hinted at being in the works since his latest comment in this thread. So there may be some confusion going on here.
Which I raise a point of order maybe a thread split would be wise.
It comes out in march my dude, at least according to the pledge manager. That Beta is running pretty close to print time, wouldn't you say? How long before things have to go to print to get packaged and sent out? And a lot of those likes all come with big caveats that I don't think most of the RPG communities out there would want to deal with. In general, the current market for RPG's is saturated by simple systems, more simple than Destiny, or any other BT/MW RPG. The reason for this is they're all aiming for maximum marketshare, and it works for them. The more complex systems that do well, have larger inbuilt audiences than BT/MW.
It just strikes me as a product that's not going to be satisfactory enough to anyone, especially over the long term. It's like Wrath and Glory almost, ironically a game that went for mass appeal but just kinda fell flat. Too complex for some, too simple for others, and not really faithful enough to the property to make any inroads. But, MW:D has a different set of issues that W&G, I'm just using that as an example. And that game has a bigger IP, and landed like a whale on a beach.
For the record, I'm not big on ATOW either.
-
Well back on the topic of Mechwarrior: Destiny I will agree I hope another beta release for people to comment on will be made before it prints and it seems likely March is a very premature/optimistic launch date for it to go live on with all the problems that have been reported about it that need fixing.
As for AToW I grant it does need some fairly significant reworking of it's own and I do hope the mods agree that a thread split is in order as I would love to continue providing contributions towards that end but having that discussion here does obviously confuse things a bit.
-
I think any suggestions are contingent on TPB’s overall vision for the rules. Do they want:
1) a system that exists within the BTU, but not necessarily interconnected with other rules
2) a system that is meant to integrate with the scale chain from AToW to ISaW
3) something else
Otherwise we’re just pitching our own rulebooks
Last post on the issue....
I think that if you want to develop and sell an RPG as opposed to a pilot generator for the board, then you need to develop and sell an actual RPG.
That doesn'y mean ignoring Mechs. Far from it. This IS the BTU.
But, IMO, it cannot be done by trying to recreate the board game or replace it. If you have the board game and are in a position to use the TacAdd rules from ATOW, it also means you can play using board game rules.
My take?
You need to include several options.
First....the RPG combat sections needs cleaned up and rewritten. The same can be said for much of ATOW.
Second...the RPG needs a decent vehicular combat section independent of the board game. This section should address the use of Mechs within an RPG section.
The mass of rules appropriate only for the board game can and should be dropped.
Third...rather than bring the board game into the RPG by creating an RPG ruleset, the RPG should look at ways of integrating the board game into the RPG using the board game rules.
This would require fleshing out but would require a skill equivalence table. You have gunnery and piloting, but initiative would be a tactics roll. Morale checks would be leadership. Shutdown avoidance a computer roll.
No need for conversion stats if you can use the board game directly.
Instead, you'd want a specific Vehicular Attribute:
Ablative Armour. Immune to Personal and Support Scale Weaponry.
Weapon scales to be retwigged....
Personal: 1-10
Support: 1-10 with 10 Personal = 1 Support.
Mech: Board Game.
There could be an argument for a fourth scale (Conventional?) to specifically cover Support Vehicles. They would be coveted by board game rules, but there may be too much of a change in scale and effectiveness following the Support Scale.
You'd also want to tweak the armour rules, giving weapons a suitable AP value for a specific scale.
And for weapons? They can only damage armour of the same scale, unless they have the AntiArmour feature or Anti Mech, which allows them to do damage according to their Rating.
So, an SRM with an AntiMech rating of 2 would do 2 points of damage to Mech scale Ablative armour, a Light SRM with an AMR of 1 would do 1 point.
The ideas here would need to be fleshed out. And there are other mechanics that could be used if these wouldn't work.
But the point here is that there is no need to recreate the board game rules within the RPG. Maybe, if there were pages to burn, but there aren't.
Instead of providing what is effectively a new ruleset for the boardgame, the RPG should simply use the board game and its rules, leverage what is already there by finding ways to bring those mechanics into the RPG.
An infantry portable LRM that has an AntiMechRating of 1 means it does 1 point of damage to targets with Mech Scale Ablative armour. A weapon without an AMR ability...which should be most, or even all other non missile support weapons...doesn't even scratch the paint.
I'm not against integrating the board game...but an RPG by its nature, should be an RPG and focus on the personal scale because we already have the board game for larger. Developing a game merely to act as a pilot generator is a waste and while ATOW does make efforts to move away, the inclusion of the Tactical Addendum section shows it hasn't moved far enough. That is made clear in other sections where the game stops being an RPG and moves into something more akin to Squad Commander.
ATOW doesn't need that. Instead, certain skills should have an addendum as to how they are used in other games. It should het a dedicated RPG focussed vehicular combat section. It should remove the examples which focus on scenarios best left to other games.
It should focus on the personal RPG scale which is where it works best.
But...my opinion. I like ATOW but there is so much room for improvement, and a big reason is that it does try to bring in the board game.
And unfortunately...trying to return to topic here...I see Destiny making some of the same mistakes. Just as I see it embracing new concepts that I like. The scale concept I mentioned above is one.
Now, it is also the case that I'm just looking at ATOW and Destiny with different values and priorities, that I want it to do different things. That is why all the above is just MO.
-
Excellent write up, Talen5000. I'd like it more if I agreed with more of it.
First, I have to say I agree a general cleaning up and reorganization wouldn't hurt at all. Dropping the fiction tops my list for this, as it always has.
I think the game already has too many scales. In my opinion, the table top rules should be the "simplification" that the RPG should collapse to at that scale, without requiring a large conversion section. Simple skill conversions should be the rule (i.e., scrapping the dropping of Linked Attribute bonuses, and making explicit use of skills like Computer, Sensor Operations and Communications/Conventional).
Special Pilot Abilities exist at the table top level, and should be retained. I LIKE the fact there are rules (and strict prerequisites) for obtaining them in AToW. They make more sense than 'mech Quirks to me.
Straight up immunities should be avoided. They're another form of singularity, which should be avoided at all costs in game design. They're essentially infinities. Should every small arms round do damage? Certainly not, but there should be mechanisms for "lucky" or "massed fire" shots. And I think the existing rules due that adequately, if not the best. That system is embedded in the conversion rules in the Companion, which were apparently adapted from the rules the developers used to stat out all the infantry weapons. I think that system is superior to FASA's first attempt in the back of the original 3026 (that assigned every small arm a specific roll necessary to actually damage a 'mech).
Honestly, I think we're a lot closer to each other's view points than I previously thought, if not in complete alignment.
-
First, I have to say I agree a general cleaning up and reorganization wouldn't hurt at all. Dropping the fiction tops my list for this, as it always has.
Fiction is near the top of he list to go, but it does have a purpose. Recreating the board game with RPG rules does not. There is a lot of space - IMO - simply wasted because too much of the games focus is on the Mech scale, too much emphasis given to squad and lance commander escapades, or ruels which assume you are a mechwarrior piloting a mech on the board game. There is too else much that could be dropped or simplified for fiction to be at the top of the list to be dropped. Stuff that, IMO, doesn't fit in an RPG and shouldn't be there.
I think the game already has too many scales.
The game is trying to fit in everything from sticks and swords and knives through support weaponry, heavy machines guns, particle weapons and then the Mech PPC, WarShip scale weaponry and so on. A linear scale would need to go from 1-100 or 1-1000 to provide sufficient granularity. Destiny brought int he scale concept, and I like it - but Personal Scale and Mech Scale doesn't offer anywhere near enough differentiation. A Support scale in between the two could offer that and there would argubaly even be room for a fourths cale to represent conventional/support units and primitive vehicles. Which would be the units an RPG team should mostly face.
Straight up immunities should be avoided. They're another form of singularity, which should be avoided at all costs in game design. They're essentially infinities. Should every small arms round do damage? Certainly not, but there should be mechanisms for "lucky" or "massed fire" shots.
I'll offer an example - how many rounds should you be able to fire from a pistol before you erode away the armour of an M1 tank?
Immunities have their place. The key point is that infantry can be given the tools necessary to defeat the tank - in this case, an ATGM. Or, in BT terms, an infantry scale SRM.
But as I said, the mechanics I suggested were a quick off the top of my head example to show how an RPG could leverage the existing boardgame rather than try to recreate the wheel.
And I think the existing rules due that adequately, if not the best. That system is embedded in the conversion rules in the Companion, which were apparently adapted from the rules the developers used to stat out all the infantry weapons. I think that system is superior to FASA's first attempt in the back of the original 3026 (that assigned every small arm a specific roll necessary to actually damage a 'mech).
It was stupid then, and it's still a stupid idea and one that breaks the universe. Infantry NEED to be useless, or nearly so, against Mechs because if small arms can damage them, Mechs get taken out easily and cheaply and become useless. It must be embarrassing to lose your mech to an arrow storm. I understand the reasons why the game allows for it - it makes infantry useful and provides a bit of unit variety but it does not, indeed cannot, be representative of the universe. You throw a swarm of infantry against a Mech and what you should end up with is a mountain of dead infantry and an undamaged Mech, no matter what the chances of a "lucky hit" might be. That's why infantry have LRMs and (for the suicidal) detpacks. This idea that small arms (and even most/all support weapons) need to be "converted" and allowed to damage Mechs is one the game shoud, again IMO, drop. Doing so would simplify quite a bit in the RPG, and even the boardgame. But I've had this discussion as well.
Anyway, I will be actively trying to resist the temptation to offer further commentary. I think I've made my feelings on this issue clear. I do hope Destiny is more successful than previous RPGs, but to be honest, I'm not a fan of the system, I'm not going to run it myself and I don't know anyone who will. But I probably am not the target audience.
-
Agreed on Destiny not being my cup of tea either... in order to help you resist commenting further, I won't add anything more either. Cheers! :)
-
Please bring back the priority system of Mechwarrior 2nd Edition. It still works in Shadowrun after all these years which tells you something. Some friends and I are introducing Mechwarrior 2nd Edition to new players as we do a mix of MegaMek and RPG and the priority system just makes it so easy to create a character. Yes I know people could maker better than average Mechwarrior pilots but they would quickly not be balanced when not in a mech and learn there lesson. I always hated the lifepath/life module system but maybe that is just me as it makes the game so much more complicated for new players. The feedback so far has been really positive. Unfortunately people have had to take to Ebay since the 2nd edition of the rules is not sold in PDF.
In Mechwarrior Destiny, I guess I was hoping it would bring it back. I do like the experience level section but should still be a priority level once the experience level has been chosen. Some people prefer more skills points, some people attributes and others sometimes just want the cash (hardware) for a better mech. You can tone down the points for attributes and skills if green and up if veteran for example.
-
The priority system definitely gives you more control on your character. Up to the point that you can create the very same character a dozen times. But in the end you have exactly that character you wanted.
With the lifepath system you have random results included, what makes your character unique. But sometimes also an unwanted result. In my eyes the biggest improvement of a lifepath system is that you already have a basic story arc for your character when finished. I see too many players playing generic characters without any background story what is lame for other players and GM.
-
Random results? Sounds like you're talking about 3rd Edition, not AToW...
-
yeah, definitely 3rd ed. you could have made a spin-off board game where the winner was the person who came out of the character creation process the least deformed
-
With the lifepath system you have random results included, what makes your character unique. But sometimes also an unwanted result. In my eyes the biggest improvement of a lifepath system is that you already have a basic story arc for your character when finished. I see too many players playing generic characters without any background story what is lame for other players and GM.
And some players like that.
But if the GM wants a more detailed background, then he can insist on it and require the players to come up with at least some basic background for himself. SRuns old 20 question system is as good as system as any, and better than some, to generate a character background. But my objection remains...as much as I like the lifepath system and the inherent degree of randomness, it is far too complex and requires far too many pages to produce a character and it doesn't really offer anything to make that investment in time and page count worthwhile. Other systems can and do provide rules for customisation even if it Palladium Books Secondary Skill system or D&D trained use.
Anyhoo - I've said my piece. I like the LifePath system, don't get me wrong...but with Five Great Houses, Four periphery States, Twenty Clans and a myriad of independent powers and ComStar, never mind all the various eras, sub regions, sub affiiations, castes and so on (and that is just step Zero), never mind the wide choice of careers to fit a wider choice of campaign types, the lifepath system is not well suited to creating a BT character.
It is too complex, requires too much math, takes up too much time for many and is too intimidating towards newer players
I don't think Destiny is an improvement. I think, in many ways it is a step back not least because the last thing the BT RPG needs is further rules fragmentation. But while AToW and MW3E had the right tone, there probably isn't a single aspect of either game that didn't need improvement or rewriting in some way.
But that is just my opinion and I've explained it before
-
And some players like that.
But how many people use it or like it is the question? I play Dungeon and Dragons, Pathfinder and other RPG's. People have a character in mind, let them build it. It's just stats on the paper. There is a renaissance of RPG's taking place right now as so many new people learn to play role playing games thanks to the success of Dungeon and Dragon's 5th edition. Mechwarrior Destiny should be capitalizing on this. All you have to do is look at the basic rules for DnD 5th edition. Personality and background is used to help the player. With Mechwarrior, I would argue your allegiances or perhaps you don't care, where you grew up and how you became a mechwarrior is much more interesting than a lifepath random system. I would argue a majority of people do not want a character with random traits or the level of complexity of traits that exist today.
If you cannot keep it simple, people will move to another system, like in my example Mechwarrior 2nd edition. DnD 5th was a look to the past and a look to the future but simply a breath of fresh air which is some of the reason for the success. They brought people who skipped 4th or played older versions and the amount of new people is ten fold. Mechwarrior Destiny should be the same. I thought Catalyst was headed in that direction with the release of the Battletech Manual so I had high hopes for Mechwarrior Destiny. Catalyst should ask some people who work on the Shadowrun team to assist with Mechwarrior Destiny as I see Mechwarrior Destiny going in the wrong direction.
-
I'll take Pathfinder over 5e any day, but this isn't about that RPG genre. I really like AToW, even if it could use some tweaking (see my sig block). I thought it was a step back from the insane (near Traveler level, even) randomness in 3rd Edition (not to mention the absolute non-starter of different dice), and simultaneously an improvement on the cookie cutter of 2nd (aka, Attributes über alles). As others (and I) have said, the AToW life path system gives you a ready made framework for your background in a way SR's 20 questions simply can't. The 20 questions method has no link to your stats or skills. The life path lays the foundation of everything your character is, and even can be.
-
I think I agree with the main thrust of Panthros's point which is that there's a potential market for both high granularity and low granularity. Destiny represents an attempt at filling the low granularity need aimed at people with limited time, are newer at RPG gameplay conventions, or just prefer a more freewheeling kind of RPG storytelling. For me, assuming I could get a group together, it would be preferable to have both as the time investment to do AToW right, might not be a good match.
-
Ultimately no game system will ever be perfect and I hope Destiny finds a large audience even if I'm not a part of that audience.
I also agree as much of an improvement over 3rd and even in some ways 2nd editions of Mechwarrior it could use some work to make it less daunting/intimidating.
-
As long as it doesn't steal audience from AToW, I'm ok with that...
-
As long as it doesn't steal audience from AToW, I'm ok with that...
hmm assuming that all customers for destiny are fresh rpgler seems ...optimistic. ;)
-
I know, I know... :-\
-
I know, I know... :-\
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a tabletop game audience is in want of a split. :)
-
after reading the destiny rules finally, i may some day try a modified version (not a fan of players taking the wheel either as a GM or a player). or i'll do a mod of the 3.0 D20 Future or Savage Worlds
-
If you play, make sure to take an Assassin 'mech. You'll be able to kill anything slower than you without a long range weapon, including the Hunchback, e.g. (FEAR the mighty LRM-5!).
-
Daryk did that happen to you?
-
I just read the rules for 'mech combat under Destiny... it's one of the main reasons I'm no fan of that system. And yes, I pointed it out in an official comment to the devs...
-
SPAs scratch enough of the RPG-lite elements to the point where I’d only use the rpg for non mechjocks
-
SPAs? They're pretty expensive in AToW...
-
SPAs? They're pretty expensive in AToW...
I think he means Campaign Operations (or AS). BattleTech with SPAs, no separate RPG system at all.
-
Correct. I’ve never liked mixing the rpg with the board game
-
Ah, I see... game balance is out the window in that case then.
-
As long as it doesn't steal audience from AToW, I'm ok with that...
No offense but I doubt there are a lot of ATOW players so I doubt you have anything to worry about. Even for my Mechwarrior 2nd edition that I like, its not many I am sure and likely less than ATOW as perhaps many moved on. I will say I love that if my pilot or gunnery skill is 4 in Mechwarrior 2nd, its 4 in Total Warfare. It should be that simple to move from RPG to tabletop and back. The magical formula 18-(REF+INT)+Skill)
And that is the question, who is Mechwarrior Destiny for? You can always go back to prior versions if you prefer but I was hoping Mechwarrior Destiny would focus on introducing new players to role playing in the Battletech universe. So many people have come back to the genre either through MWO, Mechwarrior 5, Battletech the Game by HBS or perhaps even with the new fiction. I want Mechwarrior Destiny to learn from past, bring the best into a new version or format to open up to new fans.
-
The problem is the distance between 'mech combat as presented in Destiny and table top... An Assassin should not be able to kill a Hunchback (or a Victor, for that matter) without taking any damage at all.
-
Kind of a bad example there Daryk as if the map is setup for it an Assassin has the potential to destroy a Hunchback without taking damage in Total Warfare and I've maintained for a while now 50 tons is where I start seriously questioning the value of any design that can only fight out to 9 hexes and is 4/6/x.
-
Hunchbacks are UrbanMechs with better reputations.
-
Hunchbacks are UrbanMechs with better reputations.
They can grab salvage and flip off people, Which means Hunchbacks have at least two vital functions Urbanmechs are unable to provide their pilots.
-
I assure you, when the UrbanMech raises his cannon to 90 degrees, and torso twists to the left, you are being flipped off.
And salvage is a problem for people who don't buy AC ammo by the megaton.
-
Well the issue Daryk is trying to illustrate is something worth looking at though as there does seem to be a somewhat fringe case where mechs of the same weight class can effectively 'kite' others because there is no explicit take cover or break line of sight action to get out of such a situation without withdrawing from combat completely.
Which actually makes the Victors of the introductory tech variants the most vulnerable to this tactic.
-
The kiting issue is made worse by not tracking ammo. In TW, you'd be hard pressed to put down a Hunchback with a single ton of LRM-5 ammo (without a TAC or two).
-
*nod*
The main thing that seems to keep it from being too easy to exploit is that it does require a fairly specific set of circumstances to pull off from what I can tell.
-
This is something like what I mean about a points based system. It is only rough, and needs a good deal of refining, but I think it shows how a points based system could work.
Yes - I know the game has one already, but it is kinda tacked on. I think you'd want and need a more refined system and one that does away with much of the math and XPs and complexity of the existing system.
-
The existing points based system is very straight forward...what do you mean by "more refined"?
-
The existing points based system is very straight forward...what do you mean by "more refined"?
The existing points system is - IMO - hampered by some of the problems of the Lifepath system because it is built on top of that system, and therefore shares some of its flaws. It is still better but if CGL were to move to a Points based system, they should not carry over the existing system unchanged.
For example, there is no good reason to use 4000-5000 points to require a character build. That can be intimidating to new players. The system could use a simple 100 points to divide between skills, attributes and traits, or employ a Priority system. If the system were modified to encourage some degree of personal customisation, then so much the better.
-
What's intimidating about a 4-5,000 point build? ???
-
...
For example, there is no good reason to use 4000-5000 points to require a character build. That can be intimidating to new players. The system could use a simple 100 points to divide between skills, attributes and traits, or employ a Priority system. If the system were modified to encourage some degree of personal customisation, then so much the better.
without knowing the increments a 100 point system could be more daunting than a 5000 point system.
besides, this is a RPG - you generally can trust players with a few numbers or their characters would be hiding in a tavern quivering in fear of getting any XP in excess of single digits. ;)
-
What's intimidating about a 4-5,000 point build? ???
Seriously? I love math, got a math degree in College and *I* think that's way too much math for a game. The fact that you get 125 or 350 or 275 points for some attributes/etc., then have to either pay points to get them to the nearest 100 or drop it down to the lower 100 and get points back? Dude, it's not that it's impossible to do, but it is incredibly boring.
-
Hard to argue with Dr. Banzai. Dude's a rockstar physicist neurosurgeon.
It would be nice to see a character creation process that is not so laborious. But what that looks like, I don't know.
-
I don't think the number of points is the problem as much as the system itself. Not every RPG should be Pathfinder or 5e, but there is an argument for making character creation less of the complicated burden that ATOW does.
For one thing, the system is confusing from the outset. You start out with an XP pool that you divide into other XP pools that you use to buy attribute and skill scores that you don't find the conversion values for until the end of the chapter in a chart that is ludicrously too small for how important it is.
But wait... before you can spend any of your XP on other XP, you first have to spend some of your XP on Universal XP which, even though every character has to go through the step, isn't factored in anywhere before you start spending XP. Why not just start everyone with the Universal XP and lower the recommended XP range to compensate? Or just add all of those required XP buys into each of the Stage 0 options? Why add the that additional pointless hoop to jump through?
I like what ATOW was trying to do. Its a lifepath system without the threat of catastrophic injury from 3rd edition, but its just such a silly, opaque system that turns me off to ever wanting to play.
-
I think a lot of the reason the 5,000 XP isn't particularly intimidating to some of us though is because of Battlevalue. Yes it isn't as labor intensive to put together a simple lance for 5,000 Battlevalue but when you start doing stuff like building a bigger force, using C3, or Semi-guided LRMs?
Yeah the effort you start having to put into that starts making AToW's xp pools and what you have to do with them reasonable.
-
I think a lot of the reason the 5,000 XP isn't particularly intimidating to some of us though is because of Battlevalue. Yes it isn't as labor intensive to put together a simple lance for 5,000 Battlevalue but when you start doing stuff like building a bigger force, using C3, or Semi-guided LRMs?
Yeah the effort you start having to put into that starts making AToW's xp pools and what you have to do with them reasonable.
But is it fun?
Certainly it makes for an interesting mental exercise, but in the general sense of the word and for the casual tabletop RPG player, is it fun? Creating a character in ATOW is not impossible, but it places significantly more of a burden onto the player than any of the previous Mechwarrior editions. And, in the end, what do you get out of it? You get a character to play, just like all of those other systems give you without requiring nearly as much effort.
So the question remains, apart from the novelty of it, what is the actual advantage of such an onerous character creation process?
-
What's intimidating about a 4-5,000 point build? ???
To some people - nothing.
To others, they see "I have to spend 5000 points building a character and need to manipulating aspects that are worth 100 or 50 or 10 or 500 points? Too much math, too much hard work". I've seen players get up and leave during character creation because of the time it was taking and the math involved. Minimal was still too much.
A points based system should be simple....if nothing else, a 50 point system with every value in the creation section divided by 100 would be more welcoming but really, if you are going to implement a points based system, then you should do it properly.
AToW has plenty of good ideas and it is a fully built RPG...but so much of it is simply - IMO - half baked and needs refining and improving.
Now, I have my own ideas about what makes a good system.
I like detailed characters but I prefer simple mechanics.
I like knowing what my character can do, and how good he is, but I prefer not to have to fiddle around with modifiers. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. But overall, they are great for the board game but in an RPG, figuring out every last +1 is not something I find myself interested in while playing. It is enough for me to know if an action is easy or difficult or impossible.
So those will colour my opinions.
But the Points based system as presented in AToW is - IMO - flawed. It is, in its own way, better than the LifePath system...which again, has its own advantages...but it is built as an adjunct to the LP system rather than a Character Creation system in its own right and therefore it contains some of the flaws of the LP system
5000 points for a character build is going to be intimidating to some players and that isn't what you want. I don't think it's what the game should be aiming for. It screams "MATH" and players can, will and have dropped the game as a result.
AToW has a lot going for it....but at the same time there is just so much in there that should be dropped or rewritten.
Destiny? Destinys character generation system is much better, much faster. It makes things too simple, IMO, but it is a streamlined system that works well and could be adapted for use in AToW.
Still have no plans to play the game...I've read the system and I really don't like it...but the chargen model is an improvement over AToWs
-
But is it fun?
Certainly it makes for an interesting mental exercise, but in the general sense of the word and for the casual tabletop RPG player, is it fun? Creating a character in ATOW is not impossible, but it places significantly more of a burden onto the player than any of the previous Mechwarrior editions. And, in the end, what do you get out of it? You get a character to play, just like all of those other systems give you without requiring nearly as much effort.
So the question remains, apart from the novelty of it, what is the actual advantage of such an onerous character creation process?
Don't get me wrong, I was just pointing out a potential parallel system that probably explains why the numbers are so big and potentially unwieldy with so little effort to combat them during the beta test.
To some people - nothing.
To others, they see "I have to spend 5000 points building a character and need to manipulating aspects that are worth 100 or 50 or 10 or 500 points? Too much math, too much hard work". I've seen players get up and leave during character creation because of the time it was taking and the math involved. Minimal was still too much.
A points based system should be simple....if nothing else, a 50 point system with every value in the creation section divided by 100 would be more welcoming but really, if you are going to implement a points based system, then you should do it properly.
AToW has plenty of good ideas and it is a fully built RPG...but so much of it is simply - IMO - half baked and needs refining and improving.
Now, I have my own ideas about what makes a good system.
I like detailed characters but I prefer simple mechanics.
I like knowing what my character can do, and how good he is, but I prefer not to have to fiddle around with modifiers. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. But overall, they are great for the board game but in an RPG, figuring out every last +1 is not something I find myself interested in while playing. It is enough for me to know if an action is easy or difficult or impossible.
So those will colour my opinions.
But the Points based system as presented in AToW is - IMO - flawed. It is, in its own way, better than the LifePath system...which again, has its own advantages...but it is built as an adjunct to the LP system rather than a Character Creation system in its own right and therefore it contains some of the flaws of the LP system
5000 points for a character build is going to be intimidating to some players and that isn't what you want. I don't think it's what the game should be aiming for. It screams "MATH" and players can, will and have dropped the game as a result.
AToW has a lot going for it....but at the same time there is just so much in there that should be dropped or rewritten.
Destiny? Destinys character generation system is much better, much faster. It makes things too simple, IMO, but it is a streamlined system that works well and could be adapted for use in AToW.
Still have no plans to play the game...I've read the system and I really don't like it...but the chargen model is an improvement over AToWs
Paul did make an interesting point a while back in a similar discussion about the desire for XP to be just XP and desired pace of advancement basically demanding the numbers be that big.
I think with a little work dividing by 10 probably would be fine so that you can still give out 1-5 xp and still have it mean something but not be too rapid of advancement. Especially if you re-worked the traits that do change the math of how much xp it takes to increase a skill.
-
I think with a little work dividing by 10 probably would be fine so that you can still give out 1-5 xp and still have it mean something but not be too rapid of advancement. Especially if you re-worked the traits that do change the math of how much xp it takes to increase a skill.
Whatever works.
I did a little rewrite to see what was possible and attached it to a previous post, but the Destiny system alone shows that a point based system can work. The systems in MW2&3 and AToW also show that. They are more compact, yet can deliver the character and characteristics needed by a game. And they take less time and much less of a page count to do so. I think the considerations of cutout characters are well founded...but I believe that suitable mechanics can be added/adopted to minimise the risk. If you what to see it as a risk.
I still don't like Destiny unfortunately, but it does have some nice ideas and concepts that, if expanded and refined, could work well in a BT RPG (Yes, I know- Destiny IS a BT RPG). The character generation system needs more depth, the Mech combat needs to be removed, the scale system should be adopted - maybe even expanded because two scales doesn't provide enough granularity to account for knives and bows vs guns and Mech scale weaponry. So Destiny isn't all bad.
But I can say the same for every MW RPG system out there....each has had some good concepts, each has had some bad ones, and each has made enough mistakes that the RPG has never taken off in way the universe deserves. I think Destiny is the wrong path to follow, not least because fragmentation is not a good decision, but I ain't the one in charge.
Using the concept of just copying the AToW points system but dividing by ten could work. 500 point builds does sound better than 5000. 35 points is less intimidating than 350 and two significant figures is easier and less intimidating to manipulate than three.
But at the same time, there are other issues which need to be addressed and if you are going to go to the trouble of re-evaluating the system, why not just write one that is tailor made to a points approach?
I know, I know - if you rewrote and refined everything wrong with ATOW, you're basically going to end up with a different RPG anyway and there is only so much time and effort CGL are willing to expend. I understand that but even so, I would still like to see an RPG written as an RPG and without all the emphasis placed on aspects such as integration with (as in, recreation of) the board game.
-
A straight points-based system will inevitably result in cookie cutter characters min-maxed for their assumed role and nothing else. The life path system avoids that. The arithmetic is simply that, and relatively easily automated via spreadsheet (I'm not the only one to have done it).
As far as fun, YES. I find the system immensely enjoyable, and have created many characters with it.
-
A straight points-based system will inevitably result in cookie cutter characters min-maxed for their assumed role and nothing else. The life path system avoids that. The arithmetic is simply that, and relatively easily automated via spreadsheet (I'm not the only one to have done it).
As far as fun, YES. I find the system immensely enjoyable, and have created many characters with it.
I've created WAY too many characters using it, and spreadsheets to calculate everything for every era of play. But is that bringing in new players? Old players are great, but eventually they die, or stop playing, or stop buying.
-
But how long do the cookie cutter folks last?
-
Just out of curiosity since I'm not well versed in RPGs - how many other systems have character creation systems similar to AToW? Are they popular?
-
Just out of curiosity since I'm not well versed in RPGs - how many other systems have character creation systems similar to AToW? Are they popular?
The only system that I know of that gets close is the Hero system by Hero games.
While the numbers are far smaller the character creation system is such that you either have a very inefficiently made character or you had to use the app they put together for character creation.
But how long do the cookie cutter folks last?
Cookie cutter or not, even I have to admit if it were not for the fact that I don't mind working with numbers AToW's character creation options are a barrier. Both module and point buy.
-
Hero and GURPS are pretty similar as I recall. MERP is more complicated, and Role Master even more so.
-
Oddly I've never played GURPs or even looked at any of the books but somehow I still feel like we should be grateful that we got AToW instead of GURPs.
Also in the interests of full disclosure I don't hold it against AToW that there are so many spreadsheets out there or that they even exist.
As much as it may be apples to oranges the fact that stuff like PCGen and Herolabs exist tells me we shouldn't hold it against any system that there is a computerized aid for character creation out there.
-
I, for one, am extremely grateful we didn't get a version of GURPS. The dice conversion alone would be painful.
Palladium was another pretty complicated system, and I'm glad we ducked that bullet too.
-
I've found that my recent Battletech rpg game I'm in using MW2 has been enjoyable and easy enough to understand without getting too fluffy.
Sure system has issues, but it does work.
I've been reading over destiny, i would give it a try. However, I am not sure how i would like it more so than older systems. I certainly won't missing MW3/CBT RPG, it was just too hard to get anywhere in that system. Players / npcs can't really get killed in it.
ATOW while i like them returning to the module system of life paths (while not quite same), i don't like how incredibly LETHAL it is. Takes too much effort make character to have it easily bumped off.
-
A straight points-based system will inevitably result in cookie cutter characters min-maxed for their assumed role and nothing else. The life path system avoids that. The arithmetic is simply that, and relatively easily automated via spreadsheet (I'm not the only one to have done it).
The key word there is SPREADSHEET.
I should not need a supercomputer in order to play a game. I don't know what else I need to say to suggest that the existing character system - fun and varied as it might be - is ultimately detrimental to the game because it is overly complex, too math intensive, intimidating, requires far too many pages for what it does and takes up too much time.
Yes, it isn't the only aspect of AToW which is flawed. Yes - it can be fun. Yes - you can get used to it. But even leaving aside the horrendous wording and poor layout, new players don't want to play it because it looks overly complex. I don't mind complex characters or stats...I prefer them. But character generation shouldn't require a degree in maths and that's what too many new players see when they pick up the book.
As for cookie cutter builds...I agree with your concern.
However, cookie cutter builds, even with a points based system, is an issue that can be addressed with other limitations and systems.
Nor, dare I say it, are cookie cutter builds a *major* problem IMO. This is a game, the aim is to have fun, and if players like cookie cutter builds, then let them. But allowing players a free choice of (as an example) secondary skills such as the ability to drive, or knowledge of primitive board games or hobbies such as cooking or stamp collecting, or encouraging the GM to drop that Ace MechWarrior into a manhunt without his BattleMech and let him survive the urban jungle while the police hunt him down like a dog is soon going to encourage him to spend his XPs on new skills. Heck...just point out that he's going to be next to worthless when the game goes onto a footbased setting may work wonders.
But if the issue is that your entire party are Mwchwarriors, then the flaw isn't a cookie cutter build but an unhealthy focus that prioritises a certain type of campaign.
Part of the issue here is also a strength...AToWs lack of focus. With other RPGs, there are limits inherent in the format. In SG1, you are part of a military team exploring new worlds. In D&D you are an adventurer out for gold. In Shadowrun, you are part of a criminal gang.
In ATOW...not so much. A Clan campaign is very different from a House campaign or a pirate campaign. You can be in or out of the military, in or out of Mechs or fighters.
But that comes back to the point I raised earlier - BT RPGs share one major fault. Well...several. But one major flaw that has hamstrung efforts to create an RPG. And that is the emphasis given towards recreating the board game. Not integrating the boardgame into the RPG, but replacing it. That eats up space, it forces the RPG to embrace a math heavy approach, it ensures compromises in the game design to ensure that players characters can stand there shooting at a 'Mech and somehow take it down.
ATOW is just as guilty - an RPG does not need squad rules, nor does the game need to replicate the board game. It needs a small extra paragraph against perhaps three or four skills.
Gunnery and Piloting become Gunnery and Piloting.
Initiative is a Tactics roll by the unit commander
Morale Checks are made with Leadership (for a team) or willpower (for yourself)
Avoiding heat shutdown is a Reflexes roll
Avoiding pilot damage from heat is a Willpower save
Avoiding physical pilot damage is a Toughness save
And Edge allows you to reroll once per point spent.
It shouldn't require 20 or 30 pages to replicate something that an RPG doesn't need when a sentence or two in the appropriate skill/attribute description will work. Or a few paragraphs in a dedicated section. Destiny is making the same mistake, IMO, but again...steps in the right direction. Just not enough.
But cookie cutter builds can be discouraged either through text or through specifics creation systems which force a players to choose secondary skills to complement his main fields of study. Or the GM can wean a player off them or forbid them. Or use the 20 Questions style system to encourage a player to think about his characters motivations, goals, backstory.
So - I'm still gonna disagree. I see the problem with cookie cutter builds, but I don't think it is as big as problem as you suggest, nor do I believe a LifePath is the one and only route towards fixing it.
You mentioned Palladiums system as overly complicated...I would disagree. While it too has flaws, which I won't go into, a percentage based roll system is something most players can easily understand because "You have X% chance of success, so roll equal to or less" is a concept based on real life. The 2D10 system it uses is simple, and provides a great deal of granularity that AToWs 2D6 system lacks. The stat generation is simply roll 3D6 and add any bonuses, with some slight modifications available depending on the style of campaign you want. The skill system provides a fixed template, with gaps which a player can use to customise his character, including a Secondary skill system. It is simple, easy to understand and quick.
Although not perfect, Palladiums main problems lie elsewhere. One of those issues is shared by AToW - poor writing and layout.
The key here is to have fun, and have a system that doesn't drive players away through a perception of complexity, deserved or not. ironically perhaps, I think one of the problems with Destiny is that it might be too simple in some ways.
Yeah - I'm never satisfied.
-
...
But that comes back to the point I raised earlier - BT RPGs share one major fault. One major flaw that has hamstrung efforts to create an RPG. And that is the emphasis given towards recreating the board game. Not integrating the boardgame into the RPG, but replacing it. That eats up space, it forces the RPG to embrace a math heavy approach, it ensures compromises in the game design to ensure that players characters can stand there shooting at a 'Mech and somehow take it down.
..
I can't speak on how well the various RPG versions did in their implementation of the mech interaction. However, I can promise from a design perspective that a RPG that takes a tabletop wargame for its mech interaction in an almost 1:1 fashion will be definitely flawed - except perhaps if you avoid mech interaction at all cost. ;)
they are just too different in game flow, type, level of detail and perspective to work out well for the RPG derived from it.
and just to have it said, you are concerned about the math heavy approach in the char generation and then you want to use Classic Battletech as mech interaction? that doesn't compute. :P
-
One thing I recall that in particular some versions of D&D (particularly 3e) and Palladium is that you have a whole bunch of things that give little bonuses to other things all over the place. For instance your balance skill if at 5 ranks gives a +2 to tumble and jump will give a boost and so on and in palladium your boxing skill will boost a bunch of different abilities and then you may pick up some other skill that boosts some of those abilities and not others etc like gymnastics.
It is great for the puzzle of making a character and in fact I will say that at least for 3e D&D the most fun I will have is puzzling out a character for fun but it does not help the play experience (oddly many of those really fun to build characters are really boring to play because the system has annoying flaws if you play by the rules) and the arcane rules tend to push people away or annoy people that want to play (despite having fun making a PC I absolutely DESPISE making an NPC in 3e because the amount of work to make monsters or NPCs in that game is not worth the fun you get out of them in a game essentially I prefer every other edition for how their monsters and NPCs work).
So yea I can see why there are people that do not want to deal with spread sheets or character builders when playing a game.
-
I don't think the number of points is the problem as much as the system itself. Not every RPG should be Pathfinder or 5e, but there is an argument for making character creation less of the complicated burden that ATOW does.
For one thing, the system is confusing from the outset. You start out with an XP pool that you divide into other XP pools that you use to buy attribute and skill scores that you don't find the conversion values for until the end of the chapter in a chart that is ludicrously too small for how important it is.
But wait... before you can spend any of your XP on other XP, you first have to spend some of your XP on Universal XP which, even though every character has to go through the step, isn't factored in anywhere before you start spending XP. Why not just start everyone with the Universal XP and lower the recommended XP range to compensate? Or just add all of those required XP buys into each of the Stage 0 options? Why add the that additional pointless hoop to jump through?
I like what ATOW was trying to do. Its a lifepath system without the threat of catastrophic injury from 3rd edition, but its just such a silly, opaque system that turns me off to ever wanting to play.
You forgot the part about spending ##xp on field skill packages to get a xp refund to use later?
I'm sorry when did character creation become "lets do our taxes"
I recently (last week) ran a new AToW campaign and my players hated it.
The group are all familiar with the BTU and had all played in my *modified 2nd ed game.
Complaints
1. Character creation was like doing taxes. (Thats where the comment came from)
2. Characters felt generic and life paths seemed bland and unnecessary. (Even with the modified Academy Paths that Daryk and I created)
3. System was to large and disjointed compared to the relative simplicity of 2nd.
4. And the most important point "it wasn't fun.
P.S. I also tried MechWarrior: Destiny with this group and that was the only good thing they had to say about AToW "well it's was better then MechWarrior: Destiny."
So by request of my players I am going to be moving back to 2nd edition.
* I used some of the modification and new career groups from "https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home (https://sites.google.com/site/mechwarrior2ed/home)" along with my extended school list I made a few years back (since FASA/FP/CGL never finished them). For those who would like to try them I will be posting them over in the "Fan Designs and Rules" section in a few days/weeks depending on my work schedule.
Unfortunately this means that I will not be finishing my "AToW Academy Paths" work as the main reason for the work was for this campaign.
For anyone who wants a copy PM me or Daryk (if he is willing) for a copy of the Excel or PDF files and Daryk's proof reading notes.
-
I note with amusement that all of the spreadsheets I've seen for AToW are LESS complicated than the D&D 5e sheet my DM gave me to use. I'll take Pathfinder any day.
-
The key word there is SPREADSHEET.
I should not need a supercomputer in order to play a game. I don't know what else I need to say to suggest that the existing character system - fun and varied as it might be - is ultimately detrimental to the game because it is overly complex, too math intensive, intimidating, requires far too many pages for what it does and takes up too much time.
Been say this for a while now. (Funny, I think this is the first time you and I agreed on anything ::))
Yes, it isn't the only aspect of AToW which is flawed. Yes - it can be fun. Yes - you can get used to it. But even leaving aside the horrendous wording and poor layout, new players don't want to play it because it looks overly complex. I don't mind complex characters or stats...I prefer them. But character generation shouldn't require a degree in maths and that's what too many new players see when they pick up the book.
People tend to forget that perception creates the first opinion. If a players first perception of the game is there is to much hard to understand or in some cases "pointless" math (looking at you field skills) then you are going to be hard pressed to change their minds. That's to we agree on, starting to think it's a full moon or something.
As for cookie cutter builds...I agree with your concern.
However, cookie cutter builds, even with a points based system, is an issue that can be addressed with other limitations and systems.
Nor, dare I say it, are cookie cutter builds a *major* problem IMO. This is a game, the aim is to have fun, and if players like cookie cutter builds, then let them. But allowing players a free choice of (as an example) secondary skills such as the ability to drive, or knowledge of primitive board games or hobbies such as cooking or stamp collecting, or encouraging the GM to drop that Ace MechWarrior into a manhunt without his BattleMech and let him survive the urban jungle while the police hunt him down like a dog is soon going to encourage him to spend his XPs on new skills. Heck...just point out that he's going to be next to worthless when the game goes onto a footbased setting may work wonders.
But if the issue is that your entire party are Mechwarriors, then the flaw isn't a cookie cutter build but an unhealthy focus that prioritises a certain type of campaign.
Part of the issue here is also a strength...AToWs lack of focus. With other RPGs, there are limits inherent in the format. In SG1, you are part of a military team exploring new worlds. In D&D you are an adventurer out for gold. In Shadowrun, you are part of a criminal gang.
In ATOW...not so much. A Clan campaign is very different from a House campaign or a pirate campaign. You can be in or out of the military, in or out of Mechs or fighters.
And there lies the root of the problem. AToW and MechWarrior: Destiny to a lesser extent try to be everything to everybody.
But the fault doen't lie with the RPG, it's the universe that is the issues.
But that comes back to the point I raised earlier - BT RPGs share one major fault. Well...several. But one major flaw that has hamstrung efforts to create an RPG. And that is the emphasis given towards recreating the board game. Not integrating the boardgame into the RPG, but replacing it. That eats up space, it forces the RPG to embrace a math heavy approach, it ensures compromises in the game design to ensure that players characters can stand there shooting at a 'Mech and somehow take it down.
ATOW is just as guilty - an RPG does not need squad rules, nor does the game need to replicate the board game. It needs a small extra paragraph against perhaps three or four skills.
Gunnery and Piloting become Gunnery and Piloting.
Initiative is a Tactics roll by the unit commander
Morale Checks are made with Leadership (for a team) or willpower (for yourself)
Avoiding heat shutdown is a Reflexes roll
Avoiding pilot damage from heat is a Willpower save
Avoiding physical pilot damage is a Toughness save
And Edge allows you to reroll once per point spent.
It shouldn't require 20 or 30 pages to replicate something that an RPG doesn't need when a sentence or two in the appropriate skill/attribute description will work. Or a few paragraphs in a dedicated section. Destiny is making the same mistake, IMO, but again...steps in the right direction. Just not enough.
Finally, something we disagree on. Was starting to think I was in a parallel universe or something ;D
The problem here is that Mechs/aerospace fighters pilots are the cornerstone of the BTU. Like it or not this is what "most" players are here to play, and if you just brush them off as a one paragraph conversion then you are doing the BTU a grave disservice.
But cookie cutter builds can be discouraged either through text or through specifics creation systems which force a players to choose secondary skills to complement his main fields of study. Or the GM can wean a player off them or forbid them. Or use the 20 Questions style system to encourage a player to think about his characters motivations, goals, backstory.
So - I'm still gonna disagree. I see the problem with cookie cutter builds, but I don't think it is as big as problem as you suggest, nor do I believe a LifePath is the one and only route towards fixing it.
The life path system was a noble idea that failed. It happens sometimes.
But I will say that 20 Questions style system are not a fix either. L5R tried this and it failed. It created a system where the players where forced to make choices for their characters that they did not want to make and forced them to take skills/advantaged/disadvantages that they didn't want, and created a system where the only way to balance it was to make everything carbon copies of each other with slightly different bonus.
You know what, there is a system that has been working for thirty years. It's called the priority system.
You mentioned Palladiums system as overly complicated...I would disagree. While it too has flaws, which I won't go into, a percentage based roll system is something most players can easily understand because "You have X% chance of success, so roll equal to or less" is a concept based on real life. The 2D10 system it uses is simple, and provides a great deal of granularity that AToWs 2D6 system lacks. The stat generation is simply roll 3D6 and add any bonuses, with some slight modifications available depending on the style of campaign you want. The skill system provides a fixed template, with gaps which a player can use to customise his character, including a Secondary skill system. It is simple, easy to understand and quick.
Although not perfect, Palladiums main problems lie elsewhere. One of those issues is shared by AToW - poor writing and layout.
I hear this all the time that 2d6 is an issue. The truth is that it works just fine if the game system is properly setup for it to work.
It all comes down to how the system uses the dice.
For example 2d6 and 3d6 are not all that different both are simple bell curves, all 3d6 adds a few more results and raises the lowest roll by one.
2d6 vs 2d10 is not much different both are simple bell curves with 2d10 having a large curve.
The simple fact is all you are doing by adding more dice or changing the size is widening the curve, and adding more odds calculations that are not truly needed. 2D6 works fine if you have a proper bonus/penalty system in place. Which IMHO 2nd edition had.
The key here is to have fun, and have a system that doesn't drive players away through a perception of complexity, deserved or not. ironically perhaps, I think one of the problems with Destiny is that it might be too simple in some ways.
Again the problem that "All" RPGs have is that everyone has fun differently. The task is finding a way for the most people to have the most fun for the most time.
Yeah - I'm never satisfied.
That has never been in doubt >:D
-
Cookie cutter builds are good for new players. You don't drop someone who has never played a D&D game into an adventure with a rogue/wizard assassin, you give them the high-strength fighter with a big sword.
-
and just to have it said, you are concerned about the math heavy approach in the char generation and then you want to use Classic Battletech as mech interaction? that doesn't compute. :P
Not quite...
I am of the opinion that rather than spend so much effort and page count replicating the board game, the RPG should instead include a vehicle combat system, of which Mech combat could be one aspect.
A simplified Mech combat system. However, I am also of the opinion that Mech scale combat is beyond the scope of an RPG and that most if not all Mech-RPG interaction can be handled using the board game. The skill integration I suggested would simply allow RPG skills snd saves to be used in that environment.
But I would not advocate running a full scale battle using RPG rules, nor do I see the need or value to have the RPG incorporate Squad Commander or BattleTroops. RPGs don'y need rules for running a squad or rules that duplicate the board game.
-
Would have using Alpha Strike in place of Destiny's Mech combat system had worked better for better integration for new players?
-
Would have using Alpha Strike in place of Destiny's Mech combat system had worked better for better integration for new players?
to paraphrase Anthony Hopkins' character in the Zorro remake "they fought very bravely and died very quickly"
-
The problem here is that Mechs/aerospace fighters pilots are the cornerstone of the BTU. Like it or not this is what "most" players are here to play, and if you just brush them off as a one paragraph conversion then you are doing the BTU a grave disservice.
The question then is what do you want from the RPG?
If it is just to create a Mechwarrior with a name and history, you may as well just scrap tbe RPG entirely. There is no point in CGL wasting time and resources and no need for the RPG to waste fifty pages recreating what the board game already does.
Integrate the board game, yes.
Effectively rewrite Total Warfare and include it within the RPG book? No.
Yes, I realise that is hyperbole but it isn't much of an exaggeration. Look at the combat rules and you see rules for squads and efforts made that spend 40 or 50 pages recreating the board game and various aspects of it.
And none of it is needed, nor...for an RPG...is it even desirable to include it.
For what takes place inside a cockpit, we have the board game. The RPGs focus should be on what goes on outside the cockpit. Mixing the two is what BT RPGs have always done but it is a decision which, IMO, has always caused problems.
I understand most campaigns will tend towards the militaristic, but an RPG is not a table top mecha game. There is a much different focus and if one wants to engage in Mech combat, one should be directed to use the board game for all bit the simplest of interactions.
Fifty pages of needless rules that could have been better spent on a more developed vehicle combat system and a few paragraphs on how player skills could be used within the board game.
That is what I think is wrong.
If you are going to write and develop an RPG, then I feel you should write and develop an RPG...AS an RPG.
Not recreate the board game with a slightly different focus. Large scale Mech battles, squad based combat, and the like are all aspects that do not belong within an RPG ruleset.
But I will say that 20 Questions style system are not a fix either
You know what, there is a system that has been working for thirty years. It's called the priority system.
Yes...and I mentioned it as one possibility.
The Twenty Question approach is simple to implement, flexible and shouldn't be seen as a straightjacket but more as a way to get the player to visualise his character, attitudes, beliefs, ook and backstory and get him to build a character around that. It can be as detailed or as simple as the player wants
But ultimately, it would depend on how much work you are willing .to spend rewriting or replacing the LifePath system.
I hear this all the time that 2d6 is an issue. The truth is that it works just fine if the game system is properly setup for it to work.
It works just fine....but 2D6 doesn't offer the granularity or predictability that other systems bring, including variabilities in the value of certain modifiers. A +1 to the roll may be very good or near meaningless.
It can work...but other systems can be better.
It all comes down to how the system uses the dice.
For example 2d6 and 3d6 are not all that different both are simple bell curves, all 3d6 adds a few more results and raises the lowest roll by one.
2d6 vs 2d10 is not much different both are simple bell curves with 2d10 having a large curve.
2D6 gives you 36 results.
2D10 gives you 100 results
3D6 gives you 216 results.
Yes...you can argue the results all give bell curves, but those for 2D10 and 3D6 are much flatter than that for 2D6.
The game is already stretching the limits of what can be done with 2D6. That a 2D6 system can work does not mean other systems aren't better.
But this discussion is (again) moving away from Destiny.
I can only hope my.opinion of Destiny is wrong and that it will be a huge success
-
Would have using Alpha Strike in place of Destiny's Mech combat system had worked better for better integration for new players?
IMO...no.
The RPG shouldn't include the rules for any board game.
What the RPG needs is a fleshed put vehicular combat system of its own, one that can handle Mech combat but ATOW and other BT RPGs, IMO, goes far beyond that.
The RPG doesn't need to spend pages detailing pointless conversion rules.
If a player gets hit by a Mech scale weapon....he's dead.
If its a near miss, he's dead.
If he attacks the Mech, he does nothing.
If a Mech attacks a Mech with a PPC it should do 10 points of damage.
The BTU already has a fully realised set of rules dealing with Mech scale combat and it occurs at a scale that is, or should be, far beyond the normal focus of an RPG.
-
Would have using Alpha Strike in place of Destiny's Mech combat system had worked better for better integration for new players?
Actually, other than the issue of ranges and grouped weapons, I really like Destiny's mech rules. I've said it before, but if you took the Destiny armor diagram and stapled it to Alpha Strike damage-at-range values, movement, and critical hits, I think you'd have a pretty awesome "Total Warfare But Faster" replacement for Alpha Strike.
That being said, I don't disagree with the sentiment that Mechwarrior shouldn't feel compelled to recreate the rules of Total Warfare. We have two very competent ways to play around with stompy robots. If I want to play Battletech, I'll play Alpha Strike. If I want to have a mech duel, I'll dust off my copy of the Compendium. I don't need a third set of rules no matter how charming they are.
To be honest, I really don't need a mech-to-mechwarrior damage conversion, either. If my player character takes a hit from any mech-mounted weapon other than a machine gun or a small laser, I'm going to assume that character is toast.
As for the upthread issue of cookie cutter characters, I agree that they have their place in the game. I'm skeptical, though, that Destiny's system is that much more prohibitive that ATOW. Will you get more variety from ATOW? Yes, absolutely. But to what end? Is that added variety worth the extra burden of the character creation system? People keep bringing up the fact that the system can be simplified with a spreadsheet, and that's fantastic, but unless there's a section in the rules somewhere that says "Not feeling this unusually dense character creation process? Don't worry! Just head over to the Battletech forums and ask around for a spreadsheet." then I don't see how that helps anyone other than the people who already play the game.
Destiny needs some work. Its character creation process needs some work. Characters should have language options. The factions should have more in depth descriptions for people unfamiliar with the setting. But as it sits right now, I am a much bigger fan of creating a player character in Destiny than I am in ATOW.
-
Talen5000: The Tactical Combat Addendum is 25 pages, not 50. And 7 pages of that are just the descriptions of Special Pilot Abilities. Hyperbole, indeed.
-
Talen5000: The Tactical Combat Addendum is 25 pages, not 50. And 7 pages of that are just the descriptions of Special Pilot Abilities. Hyperbole, indeed.
Yes...and there are other sections in the book which work to replicate aspects of the board game. Not everything I refer to is in that section. Bit if you want to be pedantic, yes...the total page count is probably less than 50 pages
As I said earlier, it also isn't just about the page count but the compromises and adjustments necessary to fit such a degree of Mech focus into the game. It is an issue that has bedevilled all BT RPGs to one extent or another and it simply isn't necessary.
The board game requires something like 7 or 8 skills or attributes to be converted to allow it to be used as the methodology for combat. And while I can appreciate that an RPG should not assume ownership of the boardgame, but what an RPG needs is fleshed out vehicle combat rules and ways to make use of the existing stats and record sheets. Not conversion rules or compromises.
Destiny is better than some other rulesets in this regard, but I don't think it fully succeeds.
-
Destiny completely breaks the board game. An Assassin shouldn't be able to take down a Hunchback without taking damage.
-
Destiny completely breaks the board game. An Assassin shouldn't be able to take down a Hunchback without taking damage.
Destiny isn't the board game.
As it so happens, I can see the flaws in Destinys Mech combat system myself.
This DOES NOT necessarily make it unfit for purpose but the system still requires improvement and, as stated above, it is (IMO) wasted page count because the entire section essentially should not exist. It is a marked improvement upon previous systems but it isn't needed as an RPGs design focus should be elsewhere.
More, as Wrangler suggested, if you want a simplified system, Alpha Strike exists.
If you want an even simpler system, all attacks simply hit the Centre Torso but do one third damage because pilots shoot for centre of mass, with Critical chance on an MoS of 3.
I've gone through the system several times and overall, my impressions of Destiny are not favourable...not least because fragmentation should be avoided wherever possible.
But am I the target audience?
I personally would prefer AToW Second Edition or MechWarrior 4.
Based on AToW, but with a points based chargen system, the BT rules replacement stripped out in favour of a straightforward vehicle combat system, the integration of Destinys scale system to deal with granularity issues (expanded to Personal, Support, Heavy Support and Military/Mech), an improved and streamlined combat system (that might better integrate an AP and AV system) that recognises the changes made with Mech combat gone and a much more straightforward skill resolution system....and a couple of pages on how to use existing record sheets and TROs within the RPG setting.
What's the point of all this extra material of it can't be used? Thirty years of books and units and equipment and you create an RPG system that stops them being dropped in.
Again...just my opinion.
As for Destiny....it has some good points. Some nice concepts. There are parts I like. But I don't like other aspects such as the shared storytelling. And the back cover description "Loads of characters, ’Mechs, and other military hardware make it easy to start trading fire on 31st-century battlefields in no time." immediately sends the message that this is nothing more than another MW stat generator.
Everything an RPG (IMO) shouldn't be. The 31st century battlefield is for the boardgame and the RPG should stay away from it.
The TableTop Integration, Mech Conversion and other systems take up more than twenty pages. A tenth of the book replicating the board game, creating a system it doesn't need and would do better to stay away from. And I'm not even counting the Mech scale combat section which is as close as it gets towards adding a vehicle combat system.
Which is what these RPGs actually need. Destiny has three paragraphs on the use of non Mech scale vehicles.
Again, I know you disagree. I know you feel that the RPGs should cover Mech combat and conversion.
I just feel that if your game is heading towards operating at that scale then the boardgame or AS is the system best placed....
Not least because the only way PCs should have a realistic chance against an enemy Mech unit is if they have an active Mech of their own.
Mech vs Mech combat is what the board game does.
Otherwise, your PCs are hiding, running or dead if they aren't being totally ignored as irrelevant. The PCs on foot should be much more concerned with the enemy infantry screening the Mech...and which probably outnumber them ten to one.
There is about 30 pages in Destiny right there that could be replaced by one sentence..Use the Board Game.
The entire Shadowrun 5e Vehicle Combat section takes up 7 pages.
So yes....while I understand your position, I am still of the opinion that a BT RPG should not be a simple way to generate some MW stats, but should be designed with the goal of creating a full fledged RPG and not what is now effectively a fifth or sixth ruleset for the boardgame.
Drop that and you also drop the need for adjustments to the universe and setting...there's no getting up from being hit by a PPC.
-
My position is a bit more nuanced than that. The RPG should integrate as seamlessly as possible with the board game. One of AToW's major crimes there was flipping the way target numbers were presented. And the reason they did that? "Because RPGs do it that way". That's why I'm not sold on the idea of an RPG for its own sake. The BattleTech RPG should put the emphasis on the first word, not the second. Destiny wandered further afield than AToW on that score, and that's why I'm no fan of it.
-
My position is a bit more nuanced than that. The RPG should integrate as seamlessly as possible with the board game. One of AToW's major crimes there was flipping the way target numbers were presented. And the reason they did that? "Because RPGs do it that way". That's why I'm not sold on the idea of an RPG for its own sake. The BattleTech RPG should put the emphasis on the first word, not the second. Destiny wandered further afield than AToW on that score, and that's why I'm no fan of it.
*nod*
I think a lot of the problem we do have is that we do need to decide what is the greater importance to focus on.
Do we want an RPG that can stand on it's own separate from the board game(thus making it a dubious idea to direct people to an outside book)?
Or do we want something that does just assume people picking up the RPG are already Battletech players and thus we can get away with directing people to another book?
Ultimately we'll get something between the two extremes but figuring out where will depend on what the most people will want for the vehicular combat system.
-
*nod*
I think a lot of the problem we do have is that we do need to decide what is the greater importance to focus on.
Do we want an RPG that can stand on it's own separate from the board game(thus making it a dubious idea to direct people to an outside book)?
Or do we want something that does just assume people picking up the RPG are already Battletech players and thus we can get away with directing people to another book?
Ultimately we'll get something between the two extremes but figuring out where will depend on what the most people will want for the vehicular combat system.
Neither.
The BattleMech scale of the game is never going to be truly viable within an RPG because it is just too far out of scale with the main focus of an RPG. But striving to bring it in simply turns the RPG into an alternate ruleset for the boardgame and requires other aspects of the game and rule book to be compromised trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
ATOW is trying to be BattleTroops and AGoAC more than it is trying to be an RPG.
The "Lets use the RPG as an alternate ruleset" approach has never worked and the compromises in games mechanics forced on the RPG as a result have compromised the flow of the game and encouraged a more math based appriach.
What the RPG needs are 1-3 pages detailing how you cam drop an RPG character into a game of the tabletop or Alpha Strike, encourage them to go that route for Mech combat, especially if they plan a lot of it, and then adds a comprehensive and RPG focussed vehicular combat system that allows for a simplistic Mech combat system.
My idea of simplistic?
Use the existing record sheets, all shots hit the centre torso but do one third damage. A MoS of or more results in a floating crit. You could rip off Alpha Strike as well
Infantry weapons....those available to the players...do zip against Mech scale unless they are specifically designed as antiMech weapons. If a weapon has the AntiMech(x) characteristic, then it does x points of Mech scale damage. The only weapons so available are infantry based missile packs. Everything else bounces.
Mechs...tough, deadly and something PCs should be actively avoiding if they have any say in the matter because the job of dealing with Mechs belongs to the Mechjock or flyboys
The universe does not need yet another ruleset for the tabletop game.
I would even suggest a new name for the game....Dispossessed.
Again, not suggesting the RPG should ignore Mechs...just place them in the proper context for an RPG.
Because I feel is that if all you want is an alternate ruleset for the game, we have Alpha Strike.
Destiny wastes....and, IMO, that is the right term...a tenth or more of its page count on Mech combat. The rules on combat with personal vehicles, the vehicles a PC is most likely to be using in everyday situations, takes up three or four short paragraphs.
An RPG should be able to stand as separate from the board game...not only because it should include enough information in its vehicular combat section so as to not need the board game, but also be wise enough to accept that the place for detailed Mech combat rules is with the boardgame and not the RPG.
-
That's the catch 22 though.
It has to be an RPG for the Battletech setting. That will create certain expectations no matter what.
But what you're suggesting is still on the spectrum between those extremes I mentioned, which also included me admitting what we'd end up with being somewhere between the two. Not me saying those were the only options.
As far as infantry weapons not being able to hurt mechs, I'd love for some pretty serious revisions to Total Warfare/Tech Manual to make it consistent across every aspect of the game but I doubt that will happen. I doubt it'd hurt the RPG much if such a change was made just for it but I can't see the lack of consistency being good for anybody in the long term.
-
Consistency is also an absolute requirement for me. The overall ruleset aspires to cover hand-to-hand combat up to strategic interstellar warfare. There are issues, but no other game out there even attempts it. I think it's both possible and worth trying to do.
-
That's the catch 22 though.
It has to be an RPG for the Battletech setting. That will create certain expectations no matter what.
Yes...
I'm not saying that Mechs, etc need to be ignored.
But the current situation is that the Destiny and AToW both eschew core elements of an RPG setting...such as vehicular combat...in favour of creating what is effectively an alternate ruleset for the boardgame.
You may as well just add a quick chargen system to the board game and call it a day
An RPG needs to be an RPG, and not simply a way to add stats to a tabletop campaign game. Between conversion rules, alternate rules sets, etc Destiny wastes about 30 pages, AToW a little less than 50.
AToW has rules for players inside of infantry squads and making unit morale checks for platoons but it lacks a comprehensive vehicular combat system designed for a RPG.
I personally do not see the need or desirability for such systems and I can see how their inclusion has skewed and affected other aspects of the game...for the worse, IMO.
Take the entire Tactical Combat system from AToW
The opening includes this sentence: "If, through the course of
an adventure, characters find themselves in a battle where
personal combat becomes cumbersome and Total Warfare offers
a more streamlined solution, the players can either convert their
characters directly over to Total Warfare statistics and play using
that rulebook, or use the hybrid rules presented here, which are
referred to as tactical combat."
For the same situation, players are advised to either use the cumbersome personal combat system, switch to Total Warfare or use the hybrid rules.
Three solutions for a problem that should not exist. How do other RPGs handle such situations?
If they occur in the first place, combat is kept at the personal level, but a lot is simply abstracted into the background. The focus is kept on the characters and PCs.
.
AToW has a second system, an advantage other RPGs don't have. Players can drop their characters into the board game.
But then it adds a third option...hybrid rules. I would argue such hybrid rules are neither necessary, nor desirable and that the "cumbersome" situation posited by the AToW phrasing above should be handled either through the GM abstracting NPC interactions as he is supposed to or by switching to the board game.
A vehicular combat system that allows for Mech combat is desirable.
Rules to integrate PCs into the board game and switch in a PCs skills and target numbers are desireable.
A full alternate ruleset, a hybrid rule system, however is not.
Mechs are important to the BTU and shouldn't be ignored but the focus in an RPG should be on the personal scale.
As far as infantry weapons not being able to hurt mechs, I'd love for some pretty serious revisions to Total Warfare/Tech Manual to make it consistent across every aspect of the game but I doubt that will happen. I doubt it'd hurt the RPG much if such a change was made just for it but I can't see the lack of consistency being good for anybody in the long term.
Its one of the side effects of trying to make Mechs fit within an RPG, one of the problems of embracing the concept infantry have value. Most support weapons can't be effective against Mech scale targets otherwise one of the core foundations of the BTU is broken...the idea small forces can conquer worlds. Cheap, readily available manportable antiMech weapons destroy this fiction.
That concept works well for the RPG because it provides the in universe excuse to keep characters and Mechs away from each other except in specific situations and means any PC-Mech interaction rules can be simplified because the outcomes are limited....PCs can't hurt Mechs and the weapons that are powerful enough to do so are rare and expensive. Missiles probably being the most common.
-
"ts one of the side effects of trying to make Mechs fit within an RPG, one of the problems of embracing the concept infantry have value. Most support weapons can't be effective against Mech scale targets otherwise one of the core foundations of the BTU is broken...the idea small forces can conquer worlds. Cheap, readily available manportable antiMech weapons destroy this fiction."
Grayson and Cassie would like to have a word with you.
PS. When they are done, the Elementals are calling for some sort of Trial?
-
I think AToW's mechanism makes it appropriately difficult to damage a 'mech with small arms in a far more elegant way than any earlier edition.
-
It has to be an RPG for the Battletech setting. That will create certain expectations no matter what.
I’m not sure I follow. What expectations?
-
Things like your character could be used on the tabletop, a 2d6 dice mechanic, etc.
-
I’m not sure I follow. What expectations?
Well I know I expect a Battletech RPG to not be shy about the big stompy robots.
Daryk also provides a good answer.
Ultimately I just know there will be expectations that will have to be reconciled but what exactly they are, well I'm not all knowing and I admit it.
"ts one of the side effects of trying to make Mechs fit within an RPG, one of the problems of embracing the concept infantry have value. Most support weapons can't be effective against Mech scale targets otherwise one of the core foundations of the BTU is broken...the idea small forces can conquer worlds. Cheap, readily available manportable antiMech weapons destroy this fiction."
Grayson and Cassie would like to have a word with you.
PS. When they are done, the Elementals are calling for some sort of Trial?
Grayson and Cassie are kind of a bad example for two reasons.
1. They did use a support weapon designed for anti-mech use(an Infantry Inferno SRM launcher).
2. that entire scene is kind of ridiculous.
The Elementals work and I seem to remember direct references to characters surviving mech scale weaponry. Might have been near misses.
Either way tptb have decided and upheld that infantry small arms do contribute damage against mechs no matter how much some of us may not like it.
-
And to be clear, the weapons that are analogs of modern firearms are MUCH less likely to result in damage.
-
Grayson and Cassie would like to have a word with you.
PS. When they are done, the Elementals are calling for some sort of Trial?
I'm sure they would.
Grayson faced down a Locust using an inferno SRM - against which the pilot had a pathological fear.
Cassie...the stuff she does shouldn't work at all. Things like the emergency access trick she used wouldn't be an issue because the button to open the canopy simply shouldn't work.
Its great in the fiction though. Its also an example of how a PC might take on a Mech.
As for Elementals....BattleArmour is essentially a support vehicle carrying a Mech scale weapon.
But ultimately, the point is...if infantry was viable, would it be possible to conquer worlds with even a regiment of Mechs?
The rules provide damage values for longbows against Mech armour. Does that mean in universe, Robin Hood would be known for his ability to kill Mechs?
Infantry has its place in the BT battlefield.
Being a viable anti Mech unit is not and should not be one of them.
Sure, you equip them with field guns and transport, armour and missiles and they'll do a great job at tearing Mechs up. And they should have a cost and rarity to match. But give them a machine gun or a light support weapon and throw them up against Mechs? They should die. By the hundreds. The thousands. Because if they are even slightly effective without access to Mech scale weapons, a major foundation of the BT universe crumbles.
Which is why the concept of PCs vs Mech scale units in an RPG isn't one that should seriously be considered. They should die. All the time and energy and effort CGL put into giving small arms and knives and swords and bows damage values against mech armour? Wasted....IMO.
Yes...you want units to be useful.in game. To be viable. To provide a sense of worth and value. But in an RPG?
The best weapon an infantryman or PC should have when facing a Mech is his radio. Because even if he has an antiMech missile, he probably doesn't have enough ammo to do much. And of you want to speak of platoons firing missile swarms, then you are talking about either...a GM abstract unit that is being used to distract the Mech away from the PCs or a situation best handled in AGoAC instead of AToW.
Do infantry and the PCs have value against Mechs? Sure. Scouting. Intel. Security. Forward Observers. And yes...properly equipped...as an anti Mech unit. Just not to the extent a typical infantry unit can drive off Mechs.
Infantry, as a group, need to be combat worthless against frontline units simply so the existing rule that small forces can conquer worlds holds true. And if you have rules which allow cheap weapons and rag tag infantry to easily destroy a Mech, you don't get to conquer worlds with small units anymore.
None of which really alters anything I've pointed out about the unhealthy focus on Mechs in what is supposed to be an RPG.
Let me try and put it another way....
Which is better?
Spending thirty pages developing an alternate ruleset or using half a page to describe how to integrate RPGs skills into the board game and telling people to use those rules?
Because if you design an RPG that keeps your character in the cockpit of a Mech, we already have that.
Its the table top game.
Ultimately...it comes down to what you want from a BT RPG.
Me? I want an RPG. I want to set foot inside the BT universe and take part.
But if all the RPG does is twist itself into knots trying to make a new ruleset for the board game, then CGL probably dhoildn't bother. We've had thirty years of such RPGs and every single one of them has had problems - and one major source of these problems is trying to squeeze in the board game rather than telling people to use the board game.
Others?
How did Daryk put ot?
"The BattleTech RPG should put the emphasis on the first word, not the second"
If all you want to do is concentrate on the big stompy robots, then an RPG is not the right game. AGoAC already does that and THAT is the game you should be playing.
That approach turns AToW into a stat generator for Mechwarriors.does it matter if I have to roll an 11+ to avoid shutdown or make a RFL save?
No....it doesn't.
That's not to say a BT RPG should ignore Mech combat...just that it should do so within the context of an RPG, using an RPG focussed vehicle combat system while allowing for the use of existing source material such as Record Sheets and TROs.
-
It seems you haven't actually looked closely at the rules for infantry against 'mechs.
A longbow (for example) is in fact completely useless. Even a 30-trooper platoon would only do 0.3 damage, which rounds down to zero. Math matters, and TPTB did some.
There's quite a lot of space between "useless" as you advocate, and being able to "easily destroy a 'mech", which you fear. A radio is indeed the best weapon infantry have against 'mechs, but in a pinch, a 31st century assault rifle will have to do. And in numbers, with surprise, or sufficient backing forces, they are indeed "slightly effective". You do realize they do damage in 2-point groups, right? After a roll on the cluster table to see how many rifle wielding maniacs actually manage to hit. Mechs will absolutely slaughter these guys by the hundreds and thousands... IF they know they're there, AND don't have other, bigger things to worry about. Rifle Platoons have a range of 3 hexes. The really fancy ones can reach out to 9. Heavy Support Weapons can go further, and are appropriately priced. Infantry are only under estimated at the player level. Those (like Weirdo) who know what they're actually capable of, and how to employ them properly will still take horrendous casualties, but might (in Weirdo's case, probably) be able to win. That's a feature, not a bug.
-
*nod*
As much as even I find it annoying that giving a bunch of guys autorifles and nothing else allows them to damage mechs the way the game is already setup at all levels does make it a matter of infantry unless properly used AND equipped will take horrific casualties.
The idea that a group of 4-6(what most RPGs are built around as the typical group size) being a serious threat to mechs is overblowing the issue frankly.
I don't have issue with there being such rules though for a couple reasons.
1. Just making people die with no options against most units is poor game design as it robs players of agency and people can survive some things that logic tells us shouldn't be survivable.
2. Players tend to want to be able to replicate fiction in the RPG and Battletech fiction has people getting lucky against mechs without the right gear.
-
Things like your character could be used on the tabletop, a 2d6 dice mechanic, etc.
Well I know I expect a Battletech RPG to not be shy about the big stompy robots.
Daryk also provides a good answer.
Ultimately I just know there will be expectations that will have to be reconciled but what exactly they are, well I'm not all knowing and I admit it.
gotchagotchagotcha
Sure, integrating your character into Total Warfare is absolutely a no-brainer, and featuring stomps space tanks is a must, but relying on 2D6? Sure, that’s what Total Warfare and Alpha Strike rely on, but why the RPG? Because we’ve always done it that way? I mean, I’m 100% onboard with 2D6 as long as there’s a good reason for it, and plenty of RPGs do use them, but I don’t know I would characterize it as an expectation for mechwarrior.
As for mechs... you know... I don’t know...
Sure, they have to be in the game. They’re the centerpiece of the universe. But do they have to be regular participants? Regular enough that every version of Mechwarrior needs whole chapters of rules just for them?
Take Dungeons and Dragons. Now, I won’t pretend to be an expert on the game, but I’m fairly certain that, barring an especially vicious DM, dragons don’t pop up on a daily basis. They’re meant to be the occasional insurmountable obstacle, yeah? Why can’t mechs be the same in Mechwarrior?
I guess, put another way, why can’t Mechwarrior, be it AToW or Destiny, be the vehicle for featuring all of the other cool stuff in the universe? One of my favorite parts of 2nd ed was the list of hostile alien creatures that players might encounter. To say nothing of street thugs, militias, combat vehicles, ROM agents, battle armor, or any number of other cool stuff someone in the BT universe might face.
What I’m saying is, of course any version of Mechwarrior needs to feature rules for interacting with mechs, but why do they have to be such a primary component?
In fact, to bring the conversation back around to the actual topic, that’s one of my big complaints about Destiny. Yes, it has an easy character creation system and an interesting mech combat alternative, but where’s the rest of the universe?
-
The RPG should be an expansion of the table top game. Again, the emphasis is on the first word of "BattleTech RPG". Dice conversion mechanics are by necessity complicated, and that's the very thing Talen5000 has been arguing against, so consistent 2d6 is needed on that basis if nothing else.
As for D&D, that system supported the Dragonlance world of Krynn, among many others. Dragons had a VERY different place there, and the system supported that variety (if you squinted hard enough). BattleTech without 'mechs? That's what... Advanced Squad Leader 3000? ???
-
...
As for mechs... you know... I don’t know...
Sure, they have to be in the game. They’re the centerpiece of the universe. But do they have to be regular participants? Regular enough that every version of Mechwarrior needs whole chapters of rules just for them?
Take Dungeons and Dragons. Now, I won’t pretend to be an expert on the game, but I’m fairly certain that, barring an especially vicious DM, dragons don’t pop up on a daily basis. They’re meant to be the occasional insurmountable obstacle, yeah? Why can’t mechs be the same in Mechwarrior?
in essence it's the Jedi problem. In the time of the original trilogy or shortly before, they should be rare (because of occurance and power level) as in not the every day char you encounter or play, but when you try to restrict the access to them fans get antsy. ;)
I guess, put another way, why can’t Mechwarrior, be it AToW or Destiny, be the vehicle for featuring all of the other cool stuff in the universe? One of my favorite parts of 2nd ed was the list of hostile alien creatures that players might encounter. To say nothing of street thugs, militias, combat vehicles, ROM agents, battle armor, or any number of other cool stuff someone in the BT universe might face.
What I’m saying is, of course any version of Mechwarrior needs to feature rules for interacting with mechs, but why do they have to be such a primary component?
In fact, to bring the conversation back around to the actual topic, that’s one of my big complaints about Destiny. Yes, it has an easy character creation system and an interesting mech combat alternative, but where’s the rest of the universe?
the second part of the answer is, that if you reduce the mechs in day to day occurrences the Battletech universe gets a lot more generic scifi. Putting mechs in the forefront has the dual advantage of a) fulfilling the fan need for mechs and b) putting an easy and iconic stamp on the universe using existing synergies. To be honest, to serve as a universal RPG there needs to be a lot more worldbuilding or at least synchronization and preparation of practical RPG type information.
Or to formulate it in another way, if your intention is to use the board game almost 1:1 when you reaaally want to use mechs and have them in other context more as narrative side show, then the boardgame+sarna.net+<scifi rulesystem of choice> will probably serve you as well as destiny, because the world infos beyond mech context is pretty thin and the skills don't differ too much from what you would expect from most scifi rpgs. The rest is how the RPG works mechanically and that's pretty battletech independent and up for taste.
-
Except for that "compatibility with the tabletop rules", sure.
-
The RPG should be an expansion of the table top game. Again, the emphasis is on the first word of "BattleTech RPG". Dice conversion mechanics are by necessity complicated, and that's the very thing Talen5000 has been arguing against, so consistent 2d6 is needed on that basis if nothing else...
that sounds like it should belong into Campaign Operations or as an addon to it, I wouldn't call it a RPG. ;)
-
Campaign Operations is a different dimension of expansion. As I mentioned above, BattleTech aspires to be a system of systems ranging from individual hand-to-hand combat all the way up to interstellar warfare on the strategic scale. And honestly, no other system out there does it better. Could BattleTech do it better? Certainly, but that's essentially what we're talking about.
-
The RPG should be an expansion of the table top game.
Why? X-Wing, Imperial Assault, and the (current) Star Wars RPGs all take place in the same universe and use extremely different dice to resolve mechanics. AToW and Destiny should support and be compatible with Total Warfare, my RPG characters should be easily translated to Total Warfare, but they shouldn’t be slaves to it.
As for D&D, that system supported the Dragonlance world of Krynn, among many others. Dragons had a VERY different place there, and the system supported that variety (if you squinted hard enough). BattleTech without 'mechs? That's what... Advanced Squad Leader 3000? ???
First of all, nobody suggested Battletech without mechs. At all. Second, I’m not sure that alternate settings in D&D where dragons are common is a valid counterargument. First of all, it doesn’t address the fact that Destiny leaves out creatures entirely or that AToW has a very short list of fairly generic creatures (seriously, what happened to that crazy thing eating a guy’s brain through his neurohelmet?). Second, unless you count Nebula California, BattleTech doesn’t really support alternate planes of reality.
the second part of the answer is, that if you reduce the mechs in day to day occurrences the Battletech universe gets a lot more generic scifi. Putting mechs in the forefront has the dual advantage of a) fulfilling the fan need for mechs and b) putting an easy and iconic stamp on the universe using existing synergies. To be honest, to serve as a universal RPG there needs to be a lot more worldbuilding or at least synchronization and preparation of practical RPG type information.
That, on the other hand, is a great explanation for keeping them as common enemies (or certainly more common than not) that I hadn’t thought of. Again, I’m still not wholly certain what place they SHOULD play in the RPG, other than unstoppable wall of fiery death, but that is a good reason to assume that one or more would show up in any given play session. I’ve thought about trying to use a generic sci-if system as a proxy for a Battletech RPG, but I’ve never found a setting agnostic system that I like.
Seriously, though, now I’m really dwelling on the lack of a creature section in Destiny. Thats going to nag at me for a while.
-
And that makes those Star Wars games that much harder to switch between them.
As for the "without 'mechs" thing, you had suggested making them "the occasional insurmountable obstacle". That's rather different than any BattleTech or related game I've played. As others have said, 'mechs are the soul of the game, and are more than likely to feature in some way in any game related to BattleTech.
The fact that you haven't found a setting agnostic system you like should tell you something about how hard it is to do that. Why should BattleTech be the one to take that on when integration with the tabletop game is what most fans seem to want?
-
*nod*
I'm not overly attached to 2d6 as the die mechanic but I agree with Daryk that there should be as little conversion work as possible to Total Warfare.
Now if we could get Battletech to work off a 2d10 or 3d6 system across the board I wouldn't argue against it too much.
-
Consistency is the most important thing for me. I recall there being a big debate regarding 2d6 years ago, and if I remember right, 2d6 won on accessibility to new (i.e., non-gamer) players.
-
*nod*
Pretty much everyone has d6 laying around or has played a game involving d6. So it is a fair consideration to suggest using them as the basis of the game mechanic.
The interesting part will still always be figuring out a way to frame the skill system and how to advance your skills. The number of systems where rolling under a certain value are not unheard of but are kind of rare. At least to my admitedly limited knowledge on the subject.
-
A longbow (for example) is in fact completely useless. Even a 30-trooper platoon would only do 0.3 damage, which rounds down to zero. Math matters, and TPTB did some.
And a million bows? The point was an illustration of meaningless detail.
And what about a million Zeus Heavy Rifles? If a small arm can viably damage a Mech, then swarm tactics become very devastating.
Life is cheap in the BT universe and a million peasants armed with a heavy rifle would be a viable defence. That means the amount of force required to conquer a world most increase.
But we're getting away from the point.
You can't have a BattleTech universe without Mechs.
You CAN have a BattleTech RPG without fifty pages dedicated to replicating a miniature wargame.
You believe the RPG should extend the tabletop game.
Why? It adds nothing to the tabletop game, we have Campaign Ops, but the RPG is hobbled with the continuing insistence on duplicating rules already given.
You should indeed be able to drop your character into the board game but that requires small updates of a handful of skills. Destiny spends thirty pages on conversions and tactical combat links that could be swapped out with the sentence "use the board game". AToW devotes even more space.
And both lack what I would consider core aspects of a tech based RPG such as vehicle rules. You cannot justify adding the Tactical Rules by suggesting players can't be expected to have the board game, and then excuse the lack of core functionality by pointing players to the board game.
As I keep saying...what I want from a BattleTech RPG is an RPG set in the BattleTech universe.
What you want seems to be a way to provide stats for your pilot and an alternate rule system.
In essence, what you appear to want is a game where you spend your time inside a Mech cockpit. That game is the tabletop game and the thin veneer of RPG stats can't hide that AGoAC is the game best suited for that.
What I want is a game which follows what I do OUTSIDE the cockpit. On foot. On a car. Driving around and interacting with people in universe.
That, to me, is an RPG. Sure...piloting a Mech and Mecha would be important aspects of the game...but the primary focus are the players, the characters and the way they interact with NPCs.
Should a player team be able to defeat a Mech?
IMO...no. In an RPG, the challenge would be to outthink the pilot.
Or to obtain the weapons needed to defeat the Mech.
You want to damage a Mech? Why not spike the warriors meal the night before? Or go hunting for a batch of infantry portable anti Mech missiles?
In short...do what you would do in any other RPG game.
But you pit a soldier with an M16 against an Abrams...do you think he'll have any success destroying the tank?
You have a game system that is supposed to allow for players who are scientists, journalists, detectives, explorers, and more....
But if they don't have a Mech, what then?
Mechs are important to the universe....but just as they aren't the focus in BattleTroops, AeroTech or BattleSpace, they should not be the focus of a BattleTech RPG.
The focus of a BatleTech RPG should be the characters.
The focus should be on the party.
And a Mech should simply be part of the universe, a vehicle for the players to use, an enemy for them to defeat.
Because the RPG game is an RPG game, and not a substitute ruleset for the boardgame. A game where the hero is the pilot, the scientist, the explorer rather than the vehicle. Or should (IMO) be.
Both AToW and Destiny are hobbled by the focus on Mech combat. As was MW3 and even MW2 and MW1. They are lacking certain critical information...vehicle rules, critters, universe info. The focus on the trying to fit Mechs into the game has also led to various compromises in the mechanics. Compromises which, again IMO, are detrimental.
Conversely....if you do want an RPG which does focus on Mechs, then that too is hobbled. The BT RPG is a hybrid, an unfocused mess that can't decide what it wants to be and suffers as a result.
Now...I would never advocate removing Mechs from the game, though I would argue focussing the game on small military teams...special forces which employ a variety of archetypes...might lead to a more focussed outlook. But there is a vast difference between removing from the game and shining the spotlight on the PCs instead
If we want a game that focuses on Mech combat, we have AGoAC
The RPG should focus on the characters, should be an RPG and should fold Mech combat into a fully realised vehicle combat system, integrating Mech scale units by incorporating existing rules rather than providing alternate rulesets.
But anyway, I think I'm going round in circles on this.
-
I remain unconvinced the BT RPG will ever rise above a niche product (I might be persuaded 2e was the closest to mainstream success). While tptb have done admirably in including AToW updates in products,
Destiny simply doesn’t exist if AToW had any real traction. Eight years since a rulebook reprint does not scream a product the masses are clamoring for. Whatever its merits, the most common word group I see from the few people who aren’t active boosters is synonyms of “cumbersome”
Further, the “Shink dem rulebooks” mandate puts AToW solidly in the crosshairs. At this point it already has a reputation. Perception is far more than a few arguments to the contrary
-
I still maintain Destiny is even more in the wrong direction on many counts.
-
i never made a value judgement of either system. regardless of how good or bad destiny is, it's difficult to deny that its presence is directly related to AToW's market traction issues.
i've heard the same complaints about AToW for a decade - whether they have merit or not is immaterial as it's been repeated enough to be tacitly accepted as fact. a bad reputation is more difficult to scrub than almost any other issue. that they went with all the effort of building this incarnation from scratch instead of adapting the existing system speaks to a rather bleak future for AToW - unless destiny bombs so spectacularly that they have no choice but to go back.
-
I am actually inclined to agree, we're talking about something that is probably only ever going to be a niche product at best.
AToW to me only really has two major problems. Everything else is manageable.
1. As much as I can clock myself in under 10 minutes(without a spreadsheet) to get a 5,000 xp point buy character done except for equipment I do get not everyone can do this and the module system is certainly daunting/intimidating. So yeah character creation needs work.
2. There is just a lot of stuff that found it's way into the companion that should have been in the core book and even then it's not how I would have approached it.
-
As others have already said, there should be no Battletech mech /tabletop rules outside whatever conversion to get the appropriate pilot and gunnery skill. It should be RPG rules only IMHO.
I still would ask the question who the Destiny rule book is for and I wish the developers would articulate that. I think it should be for new players. Leave the ATOW baggage at the door please!
-
I still maintain Destiny is even more in the wrong direction on many counts.
Like all other MW RPGs, Destiny does some things right, brings in some new concepts (for the game) and does other stuff wrong.
Being fair, I've never liked the cue system.
But that is a personal preference...I prefer the structure of a GM, and some groups/people just aren't cut out to be "narrators".
It probably works for some but my own opinions are going to colour how I see Destiny. That and I don't appreciate fragmentation of the player base.
Personally, if they wanted a rules lite RPG, they should have just brought back MW2 and made a few adjustments to the well known issues.
-
And that makes those Star Wars games that much harder to switch between them.
Granted, but let’s not sit here and pretend that Battletech characters are some kind of deeply
complicated balance of statistics and dozens of various abilities. Nine times out of ten, a Battletech characters is a name and two single digit numbers. That level of simplicity does not merit anything more than a page of conversion rules in either AToW or Destiny. maybe a few more if you add SPAs.
As for the "without 'mechs" thing, you had suggested making them "the occasional insurmountable obstacle". That's rather different than any BattleTech or related game I've played. As others have said, 'mechs are the soul of the game, and are more than likely to feature in some way in any game related to BattleTech.
The fact that you haven't found a setting agnostic system you like should tell you something about how hard it is to do that. Why should BattleTech be the one to take that on when integration with the tabletop game is what most fans seem to want?
Right, but the “occasional insurmountable obstacle” that I suggested is vastly different than the “Battletech without mechs” that you translated it to mean. To say nothing of the fact that you are still framing the RPG as Battletech and not a Battletech RPG.
How many mechs were there in Battlespace? Or Aerotech? There’s a difference between “this game is set in the Battletech universe and has some rules of integrating with A Time of War” and “this game is set in the Battletech universe and devotes half of its page count to reinventing AToW at a slightly different scale”.
*nod*
I'm not overly attached to 2d6 as the die mechanic but I agree with Daryk that there should be as little conversion work as possible to Total Warfare.
Now if we could get Battletech to work off a 2d10 or 3d6 system across the board I wouldn't argue against it too much.
Consistency is the most important thing for me. I recall there being a big debate regarding 2d6 years ago, and if I remember right, 2d6 won on accessibility to new (i.e., non-gamer) players.
So consistency and accessibility are the arguments for 2D6 versus something else. I can buy that. I think other flavors of dice are way more common than they used to be, especially in the hobby industry, but I can buy those reasons.
I still would ask the question who the Destiny rule book is for and I wish the developers would articulate that. I think it should be for new players. Leave the ATOW baggage at the door please!
This is my question. What, exactly, is Destiny meant to do for the current constellation of Battletech games? Right now, it’s a rules-lite way to take your pilot out of the cockpit and... what? Get back into the cockpit after talking a bit and maybe shooting someone. It is certainly an alternative to the rules-dense AToW, but what does it do?
-
To truly answer the question of what type of battletech RPG is needed one must first look at the faults and advantages with the preceding games.
Mechwarrior (1st edition)
Faults
1. Was in all aspects the Tabletop game with names game that Talen5000 is arguing against.
2. Provided only a cursory framework to the BTU.
3. Was way more complex then it needed to be to do what it was trying to do (damage system)
4. Extremely limited options for character creation in both PC type and options.
Advantages
1. Was basically the Tabletop game with names
Mechwarrior 2nd edition
Faults
1. Issues with rapid advancement, which could be fixed by lowing book suggested XP awards and removing some of the work arounds to skill advancement.
(Like improving skills without AP/XP)
2. Core character creation spread over to many books, leading to some factions not getting covered due to the switch to 3rd mid field manual rollout.
3. Lacked any real rules for creating a non-warrior type character. Again can easily be fixed by adding more fields.
4. To many skills condensed into "Special Interest" skill
Advantages
1. Kept the BTU feel throughout the books, every piece of game data had the corresponding fluff to make it feel like it belonged in the BTU.
2. Tabletop integration handled in the companion book in only 8 pages and most of that was examples. (Talen5000 dream)
3. Easy to use with lots of options and near limitless expandability Priority based character creation system.
4. Easy to follow book layout.
5. Wealth of in-universe fluff.
6. 2nd most game materiel of any of the Battletech RPGs
7. Simple progressive skill/attribute advancement
Mechwarrior 3rd edition/Classic Battletech RPG
Faults
1. Splitting Gunnery into 3 different skills.
2. Overly random and dangerous character creation system.
3. Poorly executed switch to a 2d10 system.
4. Entirely, to many lifepaths that did little to expand the BTU feel. (TOD: Clan-Innersphere liaison "really") (see Advantage #4)
5. Overly complex Tabletop conversion due to the 2d10 system.
6. Same issue as 2nd with missing material due to the mid rollout switch. (see advantage #3)
Advantages
1. Added non-warrior type characters as a viable option.
2. Most game material of any of the RPGs.
3. Earlier issues with missing material fixed in the companion book.
4. Did provide a good number of variable lifepaths to truly give a different feel to PCs from different realms
5. Great range of skills (outside the Gunnery split)
A Time of War (Mechwarrior 4th edition)
Faults
1. PCs in general feel to generic.
2. Overly complex Tabletop conversion for no apparent reason. (See Advantage #4)
3. Way to much of the book wasted on pretty pictures and story's that do nothing to help new players understand the game.
4. Character creation is like doing taxes.
5. Second lowest amount of game material next to 1st.
6. Horrible overall book layout
Advantages
1. Even with the wasted space, crams quite a lot of material into the corebook
2. Clean relatively easy to use system, if you can find all its parts in the book layout.
3. Covers most aspects of the BTU well in the corebook.
4. While overblown and complicated the Tabletop conversion and tactical game do work and are fairly enjoyable.
5. Comprehensive equipment and services list provide in the corebook.
6. Great range of skills
Mechwarrior: Destiny
Faults
1. Hard to nail down reason to exist and target audience.
2. Extremely narrative gaming system that would only appeal to a small number of gamers.
3. Character creation just a super simplified version of the Life path system from 4th.
4. Book lacks any real information on the BTU and adds a new mech combat system with way to many holes.
5. System was not made for Battletech and is just a almost word for word port of the cue system.
Advantages
Sorry to say I can't find any advantages to this system.
Other probably have more likes and dislike but I think this is a good starting point.
-
For me, the simple character creation in Destiny is an advantage and not a flaw. Otherwise, I agree with most of your points.
-
I'm not seeing the "too generic" aspect of AToW characters? Can you expand on that thought a bit?
-
Never had a problem with converting AToW to Total Warfare and the stories/pictures I consider advantages for understanding the setting.
To a certain extent I can also grasp the realism of having three different gunnery skills and kind of like it. Someone who spends the majority of their time in an 8Q Awesome should have a harder time with the ACs of a Rifleman 3N. But it is something I don't consider critical.
Otherwise I likewise either agree or can get out of the way of changes that I may not absolutely agree with but certainly understand I'm not typical or the majority.
-
I'm going to take issue with the narrative focus as a flaw in Destiny. I think that hits a note that may resonate with people going along with the Warchest system. We have gobs of tracking systems and structure, which I theoretically love, but people just 'get' the Warchest system because it's clear, fairly easy to use, and well supported. I predict the Destiny system has a similar chance depending on how easy it is to switch between other campaign systems including Warchest.
Another reason is because I keep seeing local groups and those at cons splitting into two major play types for D&D. Either going for a large amount of technical tracking and detail a'la Pathfinder or really enjoying the story-go-round more freewheeling style of 5ed. I'd call the split I've observed somewhere around 40/60 in favor of 5ed (which may be just a marketing advantage). But there is an audience for 'just tell the story dangit'.
Otherwise I think those points are pretty perceptive.
-
I've never used the Warchest system... what about it is similar to Destiny's narrative rules?
-
I've never used the Warchest system... what about it is similar to Destiny's narrative rules?
I wouldn't make a technical comparison, rather a qualitative comparison. Again, it's fairly simple to use and gets out of the way of play, a very intuitive judgment but no less valid for it.
-
Rog... I have to say I don't find anything about Destiny intuitive, so I'm still mystified...
-
Again different players are going to have different views of the good and the bad about each game.
I'm not seeing the "too generic" aspect of AToW characters? Can you expand on that thought a bit?
Don't get me wrong, every version of the RPG so far has gone from one extreme to the other on this one.
1st created totally generic almost carbon copy characters, but this was due to the just TT mech pilots with names aspect of the game.
2nd had more flexibility and still made fairly generic characters, but seemed to be trying to fix this in the field manuals until the switch to 3rd.
3rd went the other way and gave way to much mechanical veneration to the characters that bordered on the insane.
4th (AToW) Went back to the other side of the spectrum, not to the extent of 1st but enough that the outside of home region most characters of a type follow a set this is what you get pattern. (Was the whole point of my Academy update project)
That's all I can do now will respond to others after work.
-
Mechwarrior (1st edition)
Faults
1. Was in all aspects the Tabletop game with names game that Talen5000 is arguing against.
2. Provided only a cursory framework to the BTU.
3. Was way more complex then it needed to be to do what it was trying to do (damage system)
4. Extremely limited options for character creation in both PC type and options.
Advantages
1. Was basically the Tabletop game with names
Can't really disagree. It provided enough of a framework to be called an RPG, but its focus was most definitely on the Mech and campaigns rather than as a full RPG system.
Whether that is an advantage or not depends on tbe type of campaign you want.
Mechwarrior 2nd edition
Faults
1. Issues with rapid advancement, which could be fixed by lowing book suggested XP awards and removing some of the work arounds to skill advancement.
(Like improving skills without AP/XP)
2. Core character creation spread over to many books, leading to some factions not getting covered due to the switch to 3rd mid field manual rollout.
3. Lacked any real rules for creating a non-warrior type character. Again can easily be fixed by adding more fields.
4. To many skills condensed into "Special Interest" skill
Advantages
1. Kept the BTU feel throughout the books, every piece of game data had the corresponding fluff to make it feel like it belonged in the BTU.
2. Tabletop integration handled in the companion book in only 8 pages and most of that was examples. (Talen5000 dream)
3. Easy to use with lots of options and near limitless expandability Priority based character creation system.
4. Easy to follow book layout.
5. Wealth of in-universe fluff.
6. 2nd most game materiel of any of the Battletech RPGs
7. Simple progressive skill/attribute advancement
It's not that I "dream" of minimal integration.
I simply think that the level of integration involved is unnecessary and even detrimental. ATOW devotes 50 pages to rules for conversions and running the tabletop using RPG rules. Instead, all that is needed is modifications to about ten skills, and a note telling us that 1 point of pilot damage is equal to a hit dealing X damage.
Anything else is a waste. Even if you think such rules are desirable...and I do not...they would be best placed in a companion book.
Overall....MW2 strikes me as a flawed, but decent system and if CGL wanted a rules-lite version, this would have been a better option than the Cue system.
Mechwarrior 3rd edition/Classic Battletech RPG
Faults
1. Splitting Gunnery into 3 different skills.
2. Overly random and dangerous character creation system.
3. Poorly executed switch to a 2d10 system.
4. Entirely, to many lifepaths that did little to expand the BTU feel. (TOD: Clan-Innersphere liaison "really") (see Advantage #4)
5. Overly complex Tabletop conversion due to the 2d10 system.
6. Same issue as 2nd with missing material due to the mid rollout switch. (see advantage #3)
Advantages
1. Added non-warrior type characters as a viable option.
2. Most game material of any of the RPGs.
3. Earlier issues with missing material fixed in the companion book.
4. Did provide a good number of variable lifepaths to truly give a different feel to PCs from different realms
5. Great range of skills (outside the Gunnery split)
Personally, I see little wrong with dividing Gunnery into three, or a 2D10 system. It did and does a lot right, but also a lot wrong.
A Time of War (Mechwarrior 4th edition)
Faults
1. PCs in general feel to generic.
2. Overly complex Tabletop conversion for no apparent reason. (See Advantage #4)
3. Way to much of the book wasted on pretty pictures and story's that do nothing to help new players understand the game.
4. Character creation is like doing taxes.
5. Second lowest amount of game material next to 1st.
6. Horrible overall book layout
Advantages
1. Even with the wasted space, crams quite a lot of material into the corebook
2. Clean relatively easy to use system, if you can find all its parts in the book layout.
3. Covers most aspects of the BTU well in the corebook.
4. While overblown and complicated the Tabletop conversion and tactical game do work and are fairly enjoyable.
5. Comprehensive equipment and services list provide in the corebook.
6. Great range of skills
Not sure what you mean by PCs being too generic.
There is a reason for the Tactical Integration rules...this is an RPG where the focus isn't the character, but the vehicle.The problem is this turns it into a variant of AGoAC, which in turn leads to various flaws in the mechanics, which are compounded by other issues such as the lack of granularity in a 2D6 system.
Mechwarrior: Destiny
Faults
1. Hard to nail down reason to exist and target audience.
2. Extremely narrative gaming system that would only appeal to a small number of gamers.
3. Character creation just a super simplified version of the Life path system from 4th.
4. Book lacks any real information on the BTU and adds a new mech combat system with way to many holes.
5. System was not made for Battletech and is just a almost word for word port of the cue system.
Advantages
Sorry to say I can't find any advantages to this system.
I can't say there are no advantages to the system. I'm not familiar enough with Cue to suggest any.
All I can say is that I have checked out the Beta and can state that while I think there are some nice concepts being added to the MWRPG game...e.g. the scale system...overall, I think I am of the opinion that CUE is a bad fit for the BTU, and it isn't a system I have any plans to try.
I can appreciate a rules light system, but I feel Destiny may be taking that too far. A modified MW2 may have been a better approach.
As it is, at least some of the problems I have with AToW have to do with its approach. To be a replacement for AGoAC with a slightly different ruleset is not what I want or expect from an RPG. That focus colours many aspects of the game, often poorly, and creates a game system that is far too reliant on modifiers and obscure mechanics.
Maybe I'm not giving it enough credit but, as someone pointed out, a rulebook OOP for 8 years, and the existence of a new rule set in the form of Destiny doesn't speak of success.
I know...believe I know...what needs to be done to fix AToW. The Tactical rules need to be ripped out entirely. Sections that ate currently missing or underdeveloped - vehicle combat and critters for example - need to be added or fleshed out. The mechanics need to be streamlined and the math heavy approach reduced. A new chargen system that replaces the Lifepath system.....and replace entirely, with not a hint of it left in the book. A move to a 2D10, D100 or D20 system...RPGers are much more tolerant of diceforms these days and theres no need to worry about TableTop integration. A streamlined combat system that integrates a scale mechanic to separate the various levels of power, and which implements viable Armour and Amour Piercing rules.
And so on. Some of those suggestions would be unpopular, but I think, I believe, that they would create a better RPG. But not the Mech centric game that players are usually "encouraged" to play.
-
Uber is going to be a few minutes so time for one more
I'm going to take issue with the narrative focus as a flaw in Destiny. I think that hits a note that may resonate with people going along with the Warchest system. We have gobs of tracking systems and structure, which I theoretically love, but people just 'get' the Warchest system because it's clear, fairly easy to use, and well supported. I predict the Destiny system has a similar chance depending on how easy it is to switch between other campaign systems including Warchest.
Another reason is because I keep seeing local groups and those at cons splitting into two major play types for D&D. Either going for a large amount of technical tracking and detail a'la Pathfinder or really enjoying the story-go-round more freewheeling style of 5ed. I'd call the split I've observed somewhere around 40/60 in favor of 5ed (which may be just a marketing advantage). But there is an audience for 'just tell the story dangit'.
Otherwise I think those points are pretty perceptive.
I don't think we are using narrative focus is the same way here.
I was addressing the lose flow structure (pass the flashlight story telling) of Destiny. That is less structured the most RPG players are use to.
The lack of a GM, Initiative system, etc.
Where Warchest is a loses structure for creating linked TT scenarios, it doesn't change the core rules of the TT game.
Destiny and the Cue system in general changes RPG standards at there core and in my experience this only appeals to a small group of player types and most new players have trouble with this type of lose structure game. mileage may very
-
Talen5000: Well, we at least agree on one thing: 2nd Edition would have been a better "rules light" RPG than Destiny.
Can't say I agree with any of your current list of fixes to AToW, but I believe you mentioned ripping out the fiction once before, and I do agree with that.
-
Talen5000: Well, we at least agree on one thing: 2nd Edition would have been a better "rules light" RPG than Destiny.
Can't say I agree with any of your current list of fixes to AToW, but I believe you mentioned ripping out the fiction once before, and I do agree with that.
The fiction is expendable...rules are paramount.
But the fiction serves a purpose in that it presents the universe to new players. Thats important.
What doesn't serve a purpose are about 50 pages of tactical rules, conversion systems, etc of a variant AGoAC ruleset that isn't needed. Also of limited value are about 20 pages of a Lifepath chargen system that is unfit for purpose.
There is 60 or 70 pages that can be removed to add a vehicle combat system, a bestiary, more information on the universe, more NPC rules, a better GM section. etc. Slightly more if systems are streamlined and the layout issues addressed but 60-70 pages would certainly allow for a lot of the gaps in AToW to be fleshed out and filled.
The fiction is expendable, but given the amount of space wasted by the discussed problems, there probably wouldn't be any need to do so.
As to the fixes...the core issue here is that you appear happy with AToW being an adjunct to AGoAC, as a way to add numbers to the pilot whereas I think AToW should be a game in its own right, that it should be its own thing. That it should be an RPG.
I still see no reason why, if the game has gotten to the point where the Tactical Rules need to be invoked, you cannot just use the tabletop game instead. AToW even recommends the use of Total Warfare and the board game...the tactical rules are a needless third variation that fills the same role and adds absolutely nothing to the game. The game nevertheless lacks fully fleshed out vehicle rules, a decent bestiary, and more.
I acknowledge you feel differently, and that you aen't likely to be alone, but the game doesn't need three sets of rules for the same job.
-
The tactical rules feel kind of like a "Solaris VII Lite", and probably weren't 100% necessary, but I don't think they're a complete waste. At least they weren't as complicated as Solaris!
And I think we've already gone round and round on the Life Path system (which I adore, and you don't). Like you said, I acknowledge you feel differently and are probably not alone. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
-
I think we can all agree the life module system of AToW is a nice idea, even a step in the right direction compared to the randomness of 3's life paths, but could be executed a bit better.
-
Certainly... execution could always be improved.
-
The tactical rules feel kind of like a "Solaris VII Lite", and probably weren't 100% necessary, but I don't think they're a complete waste. At least they weren't as complicated as Solaris!
Is there anything you can do with the Tactical Addendum that you couldn't do with Total Warfare? Or, at worst, with TW and some roleplaying? No...there isn't.
The Tactical Rules are a complete waste of space and time. AToW even tells you to use AGoAC or TW. That's two alternate ways of performing the same task in ADDITION to the RPG rules and a vehicle rules section and doing the combat via roleplaying. And those two ways are effectively the same except they use similar rulesets.
Even if their inclusion could be justified, such rules belong in a companion volume, especially when the core rules could benefit from the chargen, critter and enhanced combat rules thay are in the ATOWC but really should be in the main book.
I know you like them, but they take up far too much space to be there regardless, especially when so much was cut out. Their inclusion cannot be justified under any scenario I can think of.
Take the Tactical Rules.
Compare them with "Your PC can be dropped into a Mech on the mapboard. Your PCs base gunnery target is equal to 7, minus half his appropriate gunnery skill level, rounding down"
To my mind, the second is preferable, the former unnecessary. If the Tactical rules took up a couple of paragraphs...even a couple of pages...that'd be one thing. But they don't. Even in the stripped down Destiny, its almost 30 pages of charts, rules, tables, examples, conversion systems and more.
Thirty pages....but no section on critters and just three paragraphs on vehicular use. All to provide action at a scale RPGs should avoid, and for which rules are already provided and available.
I can think of nothing that justifies that.
And I think we've already gone round and round on the Life Path system (which I adore, and you don't). Like you said, I acknowledge you feel differently and are probably not alone. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Again...the question isn't whether or not I like the LifePath system. I actually do.
The problems with the system...excessive page count, too time consuming, too complex and math heavy, too intimidating for new players...simply outweigh the benefits. Other chargen systems provide characters without those drawbacks.
Yes, improving the layout and wording of the system would help, but it'd still be complex, time consuming, math heavy and intimidating and still take up a lot of room...and even with the space it does take up, we still have players looking for more variation.
And yes...we'll have to agree to disagree on quite a lot, primarily because we want different things from an RPG and therefore require a different level of focus and scale.
-
Yes. Finish the battle in less than an hour.
-
This debate is still going? Is it so hard to understand that there are some people who want a less intimidating way of experiencing BattleTech than being slapped with five heavy hardback volumes of rules and confusing tables?
Hardcore players can keep Total Warfare. It's great for what it sets out to do. I myself like the more story amd narrative approach, and Destiny offers a great bridge between something too abstract like Alpha Strike and something too dense like TW.
Just let people enjoy things. No one is wrong here for liking what they do.
-
Well we're all about unproductive discussion here at the official Battletech forums. ;D
-
You're right. I've been lurking here for years and seen enough that I shouldn't be surprised. ;D
I'll just reiterate that I, for one, am looking forward to introducing my friend circle to the BattleTech universe through Destiny. I'm eager to see how the final product turns out with all the feedback that's been given.
Carry on. ;D
-
Well we're all about unproductive discussion here at the official Battletech forums. ;D
I believe that's in the charter, in fact.
-
I believe that's in the charter, in fact.
"You didn't see that when you came in Lieutenant? It's there bright as day."
<NCOs quickly drink coffee as fast as they can>
-
The fiction is expendable...rules are paramount.
But the fiction serves a purpose in that it presents the universe to new players. Thats important.
My feelings on this have always been that just telling one note stories about the BTU or any setting does little to nothing to truly present the universe to a new player.
As they are presented I would rather see game play examples (GM,Player 1, Player 2) that tell a story through the game itself rather then random stories the only show a glimpse of the universe. This helps a new player with both the game and BTU presentation, where the stories only do the latter and don't always do that well.
What doesn't serve a purpose are about 50 pages of tactical rules, conversion systems, etc of a variant AGoAC ruleset that isn't needed. Also of limited value are about 20 pages of a Lifepath chargen system that is unfit for purpose.
There is 60 or 70 pages that can be removed to add a vehicle combat system, a bestiary, more information on the universe, more NPC rules, a better GM section. etc. Slightly more if systems are streamlined and the layout issues addressed but 60-70 pages would certainly allow for a lot of the gaps in AToW to be fleshed out and filled.
The fiction is expendable, but given the amount of space wasted by the discussed problems, there probably wouldn't be any need to do so.
As to the fixes...the core issue here is that you appear happy with AToW being an adjunct to AGoAC, as a way to add numbers to the pilot whereas I think AToW should be a game in its own right, that it should be its own thing. That it should be an RPG.
I still see no reason why, if the game has gotten to the point where the Tactical Rules need to be invoked, you cannot just use the tabletop game instead. AToW even recommends the use of Total Warfare and the board game...the tactical rules are a needless third variation that fills the same role and adds absolutely nothing to the game. The game nevertheless lacks fully fleshed out vehicle rules, a decent bestiary, and more.
I acknowledge you feel differently, and that you aren't likely to be alone, but the game doesn't need three sets of rules for the same job.
While I agree with you that a lot of this was not necessary (tactical rules, conversion systems), I think the lifepaths are a key to a good RPG.
Now let me clarify that by saying I am not a fan of the lifepaths as presented, but especially to new players, they help to give them an idea of what a character from that area/school/profession would be like in the BTU. I would liked them to be more like 2nd editions profession/school* packages. (* from the first few Field Manuals)
-
Well we're all about unproductive discussion here at the official Battletech forums. ;D
And this is the same attitude that cause me to take a brake from all CGL forums and games in the first place.
Why is discussing the RPGs an "unproductive discussion".
It give the appearance that CGL knows what is best and the fans have to live with it because our opinions don't matter.
I would like to think this is untrue, but it comes up way to often on official CGL forums to think otherwise.
-
I think because a lot of it comes down to people repeating the same points over and over again that boils down to a subjective matter of opinion.
Maybe I'm wrong, but there are people who seem to be trying to convince others that Destiny should just be abandoned and that people are wrong for liking it based solely on the fact that they personally like Total Warfare and ATOW better. Maybe I frequent different gaming circles, but I know there are definitely people who like the rules lite, narrative RPG experience too.
Now, I will agree that maybe supporting three different systems (TW, Destiny, Alpha Strike) is too much. But that's why I hope Alpha Strike can maybe evolve into a Destiny/AS hybrid like some people have already experimented with.
-
I for one know it is mostly for subjective reasons that I don't like Destiny but I'll never call for it to be abandoned.
The worst I'll say about it is it really needs another beta release with some of the feedback provided incorporated before it goes live for us to provide more feedback on and that it isn't for me. Which is fine. Not every product is going to be for every fan.
I am much more of a fan of the more structured approach of one GM for a campaign and have some other quibles about the Cue system that makes me not like it very much but that doesn't mean I think people are wrong for liking the pass the GM/Cue system.
Part of that is because as others have pointed out not everyone is a good GM. I do it the next most commonly in my gaming group after Liam's Ghost but I still consider myself kind of lack luster at it with a few gems of campaigns that were great fun for everyone.
All that said as far as AToW, or any future RPG is concerned, I'll defend the fiction as part of the setting specific RPG as being a good idea to include because Battletech's 35+ years of lore is already a barrier to entry that would be made worse by not including at least a little something in the RPG.
Now could more examples be a good idea? Absolutely.
The life modules I do take the point that reworking a couple traits and a few numbers and dividing the numbers by 10 wouldn't be a bad start to making character creation more accessible. Point buy could also stand to have the same treatment. Rebate I wouldn't miss if that concept went away too.
-
My feelings on this have always been that just telling one note stories about the BTU or any setting does little to nothing to truly present the universe to a new player.
To be honest, I think the fiction does serve a purpose...but what worked better to set the universe (IMO) were the little sidebars and technical reports that were found in the Rules of Warfare book.
That and a jazzed up history. Part of the problem is that the rule book is somewhat bland. Average. Unexciting.
While I agree with you that a lot of this was not necessary (tactical rules, conversion systems), I think the lifepaths are a key to a good RPG.
Now let me clarify that by saying I am not a fan of the lifepaths as presented, but especially to new players, they help to give them an idea of what a character from that area/school/profession would be like in the BTU. I would liked them to be more like 2nd editions profession/school* packages. (* from the first few Field Manuals)
Yes...part of the issue with the LifePath system in AToW is that they just aren't written very well. There are issues with the layout and the presentation which makes the system far more complex and difficult to understand than it needs to be.
Another is the lack of focus. The game is trying to be everything..and in so doing, it succeeds at nothing. It simply has some good ideas, some good ideas implemented badly and some and ideas..
Of course...it is very easy to criticise. I'm very good at that part ;)
As for the LifePath system...LPs can work. And they can be fun. And I see the value in the way they can provide fleshed out characters.
But ultimately, any chargen system can work to provide fleshed out characters...so long as they are handled and written well. A character can be fleshed out with a paragraph of text just as well as a chapter of Lifepaths.
What Lifepaths do is write a characters backstory for them. They provide a ready made framework. There are other systems which take a different approach... SRuns 20 question approach for example. Or asking the player to choose a primary hobby and say, 1 area of "expertise" per INT point.
I also cannot see any new RPG being expanded so any system that replaces the current LifePath system must fit within the book. And LifePaths, by their nature, take up a large amount of space. The BT system with its need to accommodate different eras and realms won't be much better.
Yes, there is a huge amount that should be cut out from the book. A large amount that should never have been added in the first place. But so much was also left out....just take a quick look at the Companion.for some ideas of stuff that would be better placed in the main rulebook.
A revised LifePath system and Tactical Rules would be best placed as a downloadable PDF file. Optional rules that aren't a core part of the game.
Now...if there was enough space once the gaps in the core rules had been filled in, then it might be worthwhile to consider adding any revised LifePath system. But I don't think such space would exist, and so...given a choice...I would support a Points based system instead. Not because it is better, but because it can do the same job in a fraction of the time and page count, and even if it isn't quite as much fun it won't be as intimidating.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but there are people who seem to be trying to convince others that Destiny should just be abandoned and that people are wrong for liking it based solely on the fact that they personally like Total Warfare and ATOW better. Maybe I frequent different gaming circles, but I know there are definitely people who like the rules lite, narrative RPG experience too.
Do I think Destiny should be abandoned?
Yes.
Part of that is because I don't like the system
Part of it is because I think Destiny is, in some way, too simple, too rules lite.
Part of it is because I saw the Destiny Beta and think it is making many of the same mistakes previous RPGs in the BTU have made.
Part if it is because I think MW2 is a far better rules lite version
And a big chunk is because fragmenting an already small player base and increasing the maintenance costs of an RPG, with each RPG section in future books having to supply stats for two systems, is not a good idea.
Its a concept that can only have value if CGL are convinced that it would be a gateway product, one which would inrease the popularity of BT as a. RPG setting.
I hope it will...but I don't expect it to.
So yes...I think Destiny is a step in the wrong direction but hopefully, time will prove me wrong. I hope it'll be a huge success. But I still think I a huge waste of time, money and effort.
But am I going to call for it to be abandoned?
No...at least, not directly. I think it a mistake but CGL want it so I'm not going to waste energy over it. I'll even buy it...I simply won't run it.
I would prefer a streamlined version of AToW, one with simplified rules mechanics. What I think of as simple?
GM: That's a difficult task...roll 6 or under on 1D20 (30% or under)
or
GM: That's a very easy task...roll 19 or under on 1D20 (95% chance of success)
or
GM: That's going to be a Legendary result if you succeed...roll a Double Zero on 2D10 (1% chance of success)
In other words, let your actions and the environment determine the difficulty which then sets an appropriate range of values within which the GM can set a suitable target rather than worry about modifiers. Modifiers, of course, have their place
GM: That's a difficult task...roll 6 or under on 1D20 or 2D10 (30% or under)
Player: I'm gonna use burst fire
GM: That makes things a it easier...roll 9 or under on 1D20 or 2D10 (45% or under)
That, to me, is the core of a streamlined system. Of course, it has its own set of drawbacks so it isn't perfect and yes, I am simplifying things, but the essence is to minimise the work and calculations during the game and get the player to use his actions to boost his chances of success or make meaningful tradeoffs.
But an improved AToW with streamlined mechanics and combat, removal of the Tactical rules in favour of Integration which transfers your player skills into the board game and uses existing stats and TROs and Record Sheets, an improved chargen system and a rulebook that uses the space freed up to include critters, NPCs, a better and enhanced GM section, enhanced and streamlined combat rules that revamps AP/AV/BAR, vehicular rules and so on....a lot of stuff that the core rulebook is missing but which made it into the Companion - that's what I would like. I ain't gonna get it but it's what I'd like. A lot of that is stuff the game needs regardless. And yet Destiny is also missing quite a bit here as well. Well, the Beta is - the finished version may include some of it.
-
Talen, could I get you to edit your previous post to remove all that white space?
edit: thanks.
-
*snip*
What Lifepaths do is write a characters backstory for them. They provide a ready made framework.
*snip*
Well, that's at least two things we agree on. Since a lot of players come to the RPG from the tabletop, this is pretty important. Anything that increases a tabletop player's engagement with the universe is an unalloyed good...
-
And this is the same attitude that cause me to take a brake from all CGL forums and games in the first place.
Why is discussing the RPGs an "unproductive discussion".
It give the appearance that CGL knows what is best and the fans have to live with it because our opinions don't matter.
I would like to think this is untrue, but it comes up way to often on official CGL forums to think otherwise.
They said earlier that only feedback through the Kickstarter survey form would be considered.
-
I, for one at least, copied all my concerns here to formal inputs to the KS...
-
The worst I'll say about it is it really needs another beta release with some of the feedback provided incorporated before it goes live for us to provide more feedback on and that it isn't for me.
I'll definitely second this. It'd be REALLY nice to proofread the changes a second time before it releases, especially with how extensive the feedback sounded.
I am much more of a fan of the more structured approach of one GM for a campaign and have some other quibles about the Cue system that makes me not like it very much but that doesn't mean I think people are wrong for liking the pass the GM/Cue system.
I don't think anything's stopping you from running the game as a single GM system, is there? In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the optional rules near the back is exactly for that. The cue system can just be used as an inspiration for players to motivate their actions and remain in character. I definitely intend to run my campaign as a more or less traditional GM/referee to keep things from getting too crazy. Especially since my players will likely be relying on me to present the universe to them with them being new to it all. But I like the idea of motivating other players to narrate their characters' actions themselves too and really take ownership of their side of the story.
-
And this is the same attitude that cause me to take a brake from all CGL forums and games in the first place.
Why is discussing the RPGs an "unproductive discussion".
It give the appearance that CGL knows what is best and the fans have to live with it because our opinions don't matter.
I would like to think this is untrue, but it comes up way to often on official CGL forums to think otherwise.
Let’s clear this up.
Nobody was characterizing the discussion of the RPGs as unproductive. In fact, this has been one of the more interesting discussions in recent memory, in my opinion. I’ve quite enjoyed hearing thoughts from the pro-AToW crowd.
The only thing about this thread that even approaches unproductive is the tendency for people to wind up in circular arguments that don’t go anywhere.
-
I'll definitely second this. It'd be REALLY nice to proofread the changes a second time before it releases, especially with how extensive the feedback sounded.
I don't think anything's stopping you from running the game as a single GM system, is there? In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the optional rules near the back is exactly for that. The cue system can just be used as an inspiration for players to motivate their actions and remain in character. I definitely intend to run my campaign as a more or less traditional GM/referee to keep things from getting too crazy. Especially since my players will likely be relying on me to present the universe to them with them being new to it all. But I like the idea of motivating other players to narrate their characters' actions themselves too and really take ownership of their side of the story.
That's where some of my other quibles about the Cue system come in. I don't know if I'll ever be able to put into words satisfactorily what I don't like about it in particular beyond it isn't a system that grabs me and thus I don't like.
-
It's an agency problem, really. In "normal" games, the players cede some agency to the GM. Under the cue system, they cede agency to other players. That's a very different relationship.
-
..The only thing about this thread that even approaches unproductive is the tendency for people to wind up in circular arguments that don’t go anywhere.
well, that has nothing to do with Battletech or RPGs, that's just the internet. ;)
as for productive, the discussion is interesting and as an exchange of opinions productive and enlightening.
not necessarily productive in terms of convincing others of each others position - too subjective for that - and that's the cause of the circularity.
productive as in having an impact on products (future or current), doubtful, most positions are too global, with too far reaching consequences, and there are enough opposing positions on various issues that no one really can draw a definite conclusion from it about player feedback.
Personally, a lot of the issues and design decisions going into Destiny can be explained by limited resources and the consequences of that.
And as long as that doesn't change, I wouldn't expect the 'perfect' RPG in a huge universe.
-
They said earlier that only feedback through the Kickstarter survey form would be considered.
The thing is that I am not trying to provide feedback for MechWarrior: Destiny. (That ship had sailed)
I have already voiced my dislike of the system when I was part of the kickstarter. (it was one of many reasons I withdrew my support)
This train of thought and descussion is more focused on what we would rather see in a BT RPG then MechWarrior: Destiny.
Let’s clear this up.
Nobody was characterizing the discussion of the RPGs as unproductive. In fact, this has been one of the more interesting discussions in recent memory, in my opinion. I’ve quite enjoyed hearing thoughts from the pro-AToW crowd.
The only thing about this thread that even approaches unproductive is the tendency for people to wind up in circular arguments that don’t go anywhere.
Sorry if I miss understood the comment.
It just happened to come into the the conversation at a point that I assumed you where talking about the conversation.
Add to this the attack that are continuing to be thrown by 6th supporting players/mods at players that don't like the new 6th edition of Shadowrun over on the other "official" forum and I have gotten a bit overreactive to mod comments like this
I think because a lot of it comes down to people repeating the same points over and over again that boils down to a subjective matter of opinion.
Maybe I'm wrong, but there are people who seem to be trying to convince others that Destiny should just be abandoned and that people are wrong for liking it based solely on the fact that they personally like Total Warfare and ATOW better. Maybe I frequent different gaming circles, but I know there are definitely people who like the rules lite, narrative RPG experience too.
Now, I will agree that maybe supporting three different systems (TW, Destiny, Alpha Strike) is too much. But that's why I hope Alpha Strike can maybe evolve into a Destiny/AS hybrid like some people have already experimented with.
as a whole and not the back an forth about certain rules.
First, I would like to clarify that I don't care if CGL wants to provide Destiny as a alternative to a more rule heavy RPG (AToW, A 5th edition, etc.)like they did with Shadowrun: Anarchy, but I am against them make it the core RPG for the BTU. And the argument wast never about them supporting TW, Destiny, Alpha Strike at the same time as this is a given, the issues is with them supporting two RPGs at the same time.
Now my issues with Destiny are three fold.
1. I am a firm believer in the concept that an RPG system should be created for a setting and you should not try to force a setting into an and RPG system.
2. Destiny strikes me as your typical follow the latest trends RPG. My main issues with this is that these trends tend to be "flash in the pan" types of things that in my experiences as a GM, Player, RPG store manager tend to fade quickly and bring the wrong type of players into a game. Not saying bad players, just players that are not truly looking for the type of gaming experience that the universe offers. I other games that I have seen this trough to the end, these new players start demanding changes to not only the rule of the core systems, but go as far as to start wanting the company to rewrite the game to their taste and life views.
3. This one kind of feeds into #1. I find Destiny to be an easy cash grab, they took a system that they already had on the self (that from what I can tell was not doing well) crammed a mech system that's full of holes into it and called it good. Now just to be clear the art department did do a wonderful job.
-
That’s not what the thread subject says.
-
Well Ray did ask us to provide feedback for the future of AToW a bit ago and I did push for the mods to make the appropriate thread split to avoid this very situation but I guess it still isn't a good enough idea yet.
Citation here:
The developers of ATOW unfortunately came to a similar conclusion soon after it was released, but never had a chance to put out a revised version.
If you’ve got other thoughts, may as well spill ‘em now.
-
Like I said I had hoped for a thread split because you're not wrong.
-
And I asked for my comment to be deleted. I’m not being helpful. My apologies.
I do think MW:Destiny has some great potential, especially in making mech combat faster, fun, and still feel like BattleTech. It does have some big holes to fix in that mech combat.
AToW’s system I find daunting to pick up or to even suggest to my regular RPG group. I wouldn’t lose everybody, but a majority, just from the system itself. That certainly does not mean ATOW is bad, I’d lose the majority of the group suggesting BT TW as well, and most of us here agree that’s a great game :).
The mentions of MW2 I find interesting because it’s been so long since I’ve looked it at, I barely recall any of it.
-
No worries.
There is certainly a lot going on here and a lot of it is good if muddled discussion.
-
I do think MW:Destiny has some great potential, especially in making mech combat faster, fun, and still feel like BattleTech. It does have some big holes to fix in that mech combat.
I have to say that I don't disagree with you on the great potential of the mech combat system provided in MW:Destiny.
But I see it more as an add-on/fix to Alpha Strike that will create more of a separation between it and Battleforce.
The issues for most RPG gaming groups in my experience has been you either use TW (which is very time consuming for a RPG group) or you use Alpha Strike which is gear to much to quick results for large combats and is in general just Battleforce with minis, so lacks the flavor of Battletech as it is designed to as I said before handle regiment level combat. The uses of the reduced armor and structure diagrams and the general rule of Alpha Strike would provide the feel of the TW without the time constraints and make for a excellent mid range game just right for the RPG.
AToW’s system I find daunting to pick up or to even suggest to my regular RPG group. I wouldn’t lose everybody, but a majority, just from the system itself. That certainly does not mean ATOW is bad, I’d lose the majority of the group suggesting BT TW as well, and most of us here agree that’s a great game :).
You will get no arguments about this from me. At it's core AToW is a well made game system, but it is hampered by a god offal character creation engine, poorly organized layout, and way to much wasted space.
The mentions of MW2 I find interesting because it’s been so long since I’ve looked it at, I barely recall any of it.
Last truly good version IMHO. I feel it was cut off in its prime and not given the love it needed to reach its true potential. With the additions that where being added in the Field Manuals and a few rule revision and changes I think the game could have become the greatest of the BTU RPGs IMHO.
-
I have to say that I don't disagree with you on the great potential of the mech combat system provided in MW:Destiny.
But I see it more as an add-on/fix to Alpha Strike that will create more of a separation between it and Battleforce.
The issues for most RPG gaming groups in my experience has been you either use TW (which is very time consuming for a RPG group) or you use Alpha Strike which is gear to much to quick results for large combats and is in general just Battleforce with minis, so lacks the flavor of Battletech as it is designed to as I said before handle regiment level combat. The uses of the reduced armor and structure diagrams and the general rule of Alpha Strike would provide the feel of the TW without the time constraints and make for a excellent mid range game just right for the RPG.
This is what our group did, we converted the rules to use AS ranges and movement and we can complete a RPG session with a mech battle in a night as opposed to having to divide the TW combat into more then one session. I can send anyone that is interested a copy of our cheat sheet.
-
Last truly good version IMHO. I feel it was cut off in its prime and not given the love it needed to reach its true potential. With the additions that where being added in the Field Manuals and a few rule revision and changes I think the game could have become the greatest of the BTU RPGs IMHO.
I 100% agree from my point of view. Since Mechwarrior Destiny has not launched there is still potential to bring up how Mechwarrior 2nd edition could be incorporated or least for people to understand why I and others would use that as a litmus test for new players. I would love, prefer Catalyst use MW2 as an RPG lite and they still want to support ATOW, great. Perhaps there is a way to bridge the two, a basic and advanced ;) All I know I have tried for years with many different RPG groups to introduce ATOW with no luck. Character creation is too complicated and I am not sure Mechwarrior Destiny solves this. It irks me even more with new mech rules. We have enough already. I show and demonstrate creating a character with Mechwarrior 2nd edtion and watch people do it on their own in an hour or less. We use Mechwarrior 2nd edition when out of a mech. Total Warfare when in the mech. It is even easier when you run virtually with MekHQ. I encourage if you have not picked up Mechwarrior 2nd lately, give it a look. Give to a friend and have them create a character. See for yourself. I want new people attracted to Battletech and I would love for the RPG to be that gateway. The original Game of Thrones! You don't ever have to get into a mech, there is so much the world has to offer. Which means I agree with the fiction staying in. It does not have to be new fiction but it should be fiction that best demonstrates the world. Destiny can be a gateway if the proper focus is put on it.
-
This is what our group did, we converted the rules to use AS ranges and movement and we can complete a RPG session with a mech battle in a night as opposed to having to divide the TW combat into more then one session. I can send anyone that is interested a copy of our cheat sheet.
I would like a copy.
-
I've played Battletech for over 20 years, but I am primarily a GM/RPGer. As far as the core system, I think it is pretty good. You can easily determine results on the table, I really like the Opposed die roll system rather than fixed Target Numbers. Makes things a bit more dynamic and prevents me as the DM prevents me from looking up a bunch of tables.
As far as Lifepaths, I wish they would have been bulked up a bit. Maybe use the ATOW Lifepaths, just boil them down to Skill bonuses and Traits. But there could be some balancing issues there.
I likes where they where going with the Mech/Vehicle, but I am starting to agree with Talon5000 they could be a bit unnecessary. I was basically plan to use the Destiny Dice Roll resolution, which I really like, to see if I hit, and then use either TW for hit location/damage (as well as movement) or Alpha Strike with the Variable Damage rules. Use that extra space for more Lifepaths and creatures.
As a traditional GM, I would probably stick to the more traditional GM/Party structure, but I don't mind the Cue rules added as optional rules. As a GM, I already give my players a lot of agency anyways.
-
And there is one thing (I think) that Destiny attempts to do that I wish they would continue...come up with a mapless, abstract method of Mech/Vehicle combat. That should be the only type of vehicular combat introduced in the RPG, and I think 3rd Edition and Destiny are the only RPGs that attempted it.
-
And there is one thing (I think) that Destiny attempts to do that I wish they would continue...come up with a mapless, abstract method of Mech/Vehicle combat. That should be the only type of vehicular combat introduced in the RPG, and I think 3rd Edition and Destiny are the only RPGs that attempted it.
The problem...in simple terms and as I would see it...is that, to date, there has NOT been a Battletech RPG created, written, released.
What we have had is a hybrid of an RPG with a miniature wargame. Each version simply focuses on those aspects to different degrees and the necessity to accommodate both means compromises that really satisfy noone.
We don't need miniature wargame rules, we don"t need another BattleTroops masquerading as an RPG, we don't need another ruleset for AGoAC or AS.
We need a decent, complete RPG. There is quite a lot in the Companion that should be in the core rulebook and the game does need a decent RPG vehicle ruleset...one that encompasses Mechs but isn't dominated by them.
I know I keep going on about this so apologies.
Having said that, Destiny is taking a step in the right direction....but only a step. The ruleset...as of the Beta...left much to be desired. Even merging it with AS probably wouldn't help. There'd still be too much wargame involved but Destiny is a step in the right direction.
See..I'm not totally against Destiny ;).
Destiny, like other BT RPGs, has its good points and its bad points, some nice concepts that should be integrated into a full BT RPG.
But I still think its a poor solution. Very well made in its way, but not what a BT RPG needs.
-
That's actually very reasonable and some of the fairest critique I've seen on here that doesn't involve subjective bias. Even though I find myself looking forward to Destiny as something fresh and different (compared to previous BT RPGs), I'm also in agreement with what you said.
-
I would like to see what feedback was incorporated in the "final" draft.
-
I would like to see what feedback was incorporated in the "final" draft.
My guess is that the most changes "if any" you will see in the final draft is some fixes to the mech combat system and proof reading corrections as the game is based off an already existing system "cue".
The Cue system was chosen IMHO because it was already created and was a quick add some mechs and new skills way to put out a new RPG.
-
*snip*
What we have had is a hybrid of an RPG with a miniature wargame. Each version simply focuses on those aspects to different degrees and the necessity to accommodate both means compromises that really satisfy noone.
*snip*
Not "no one", I'm sure.
-
Not "no one", I'm sure.
The game hasn't been in print in (isn't it) 8 years now.
It is on its fourth edition and its a fourth edition with at least three different rulesets, none of which have been satisfactory.
TPTB are waffling about any decision to reprint AToW, as part of the current reprint cycle of main rulebooks.
CGL are releasing Destiny instead.
I'm going to stick with "no-one".
I get that that is a description that is not literally true, but English is an imprecise language in many aspects and the description is a close enough descriptor for reality.
I get that there are some people who like the system...but the system, by and large isn't popular.
There are a number of reasons for this, which I have discussed before.
And while I know you like this aspect of the game, an RPG is NOT the place to hide a BattleTroops II ruleset. If you describe a game as an RPG, then it needs to be built as an RPG.
And ATOW is not.
The hybrid approach was wrong...it is wrong...it will ALWAYS be wrong. It wastes pages and it requires compromises to the game mechanics which can be detrimental to other aspects of the game. You can add a miniature game to RPGs but it should never be the focus. An RPG game should, first and foremost, BE an RPG.
You didn't expect AeroTech to be an adjunct of the boardgame. Or Succession Wars. Or BattleTroops. Or Battleforce.
The RPG should be the same...influenced by the other games, but designed as an RPG. A self contained RPG with everything an RPG needs as part of the main rule book, rather than sticking critical rules in a companion book.
-
*snip*
You didn't expect AeroTech to be an adjunct of the boardgame. Or Succession Wars. Or BattleTroops. Or Battleforce.
*snip*
I did, actually.
Speaking in absolutes about what other people think is generally wrong.
-
Okay, I kept up with some of this back and forth but I left it behind when folks were down to the grit between the systems and meta over CUE vs other.
My question comes at it another way . . .
With the current discouragement of people gathering and finding ways to entertain while still getting the BT fix . . .
Would the Destiny system as put out be a good foundation for doing a online BT RPG set up?
Basically use the Destiny system to tell the story since as I understand it you do not have a set apart GM, maybe FB to run the play sessions discussing events & actions, and when tactical combat rolls around use MM?
-
Going asynchronous doesn't solve the lack of authoritative GM problem.
-
Both RPGs equally lend themselves to online play. Generally speaking, RPs benefit from in-person interaction, but there are some benefits to online play. Most typically the ability to easily set a scene with maps or online images.
-
Both RPGs equally lend themselves to online play. Generally speaking, RPs benefit from in-person interaction, but there are some benefits to online play. Most typically the ability to easily set a scene with maps or online images.
100% this
-
*snip*
You didn't expect AeroTech to be an adjunct of the boardgame. Or Succession Wars. Or BattleTroops. Or Battleforce.
*snip*
Actually all of those, including the RPGs, are adjunct to the boardgame.
-
Both RPGs equally lend themselves to online play. Generally speaking, RPs benefit from in-person interaction, but there are some benefits to online play. Most typically the ability to easily set a scene with maps or online images.
Since my game store is closed down I thought about trying to get a story going online, still re-reading and digesting the rules. Its been a long time since I used the RPG stuff to create my mercs so the PCs had more background . . . and longer since WEG's Star Wars games.
-
I think it just depends on what kind of game you and your group want to run.
If you’re willing to try round-robin storytelling where everyone gets a turn to significantly shape the narrative, Destiny is your system.
If you’d prefer a classic RPG system where one person is the GM and everyone else just reacts, you’ll probably find AToW a better fit.
Both systems are entirely competent and pretty easy to take online.
-
Unless they've fixed a good number of problems pointed out in the beta, I don't know about "competent" for Destiny. If they have, sure.
-
...
Both systems are entirely competent and pretty easy to take online.
I think for remote play the deciding factor is more how familar/comfortable the players are with system and the world, less the specific system.
Personally, I would recommend a GM strong system just because my experience from remote, collaborative work is that you end up more productive and coherent if one person takes the lead and guides the interaction. But that may be my own bias and the experience is more from a work scenario than gaming so milage may vary anyway.
-
Unless they've fixed a good number of problems pointed out in the beta, I don't know about "competent" for Destiny. If they have, sure.
Destiny is great for online play. The Dice mechanics are very simple and setting up a automated character sheet, especially chargen would be a snap.
-
Dice mechanics and character creation weren't the major flaws I was talking about, but I have my issues with the latter.
-
I think for remote play the deciding factor is more how familar/comfortable the players are with system and the world, less the specific system.
Personally, I would recommend a GM strong system just because my experience from remote, collaborative work is that you end up more productive and coherent if one person takes the lead and guides the interaction. But that may be my own bias and the experience is more from a work scenario than gaming so milage may vary anyway.
Familiarity is probably the number one factor at a time like this. If the group ends up fighting the game itself, nobody is going to have any fun.
Unless you have a group that is somehow familiar with the Cue system, AToW will always win in a battle of "what game plays more like the RPGs that everyone else will be used to". I guess if your group is more inclined to play rules-lite systems, Destiny might come out as the winner, but since it is still in development, it obviously has some bugs to work out.
Then again, even with all of the free time most of us now have, some people just aren't going to want to fight with AToW's character creation system, which presents a huge problem unless your group is willing to play pregen characters.
Neither system is perfect. AToW is the closer option to a classic RPG, but has an unnecessarily complicated starting point. Destiny is much easier to start, but may end up being much more difficult to keep going unless everyone is on-board with taking part in the GM role. I guess you could adapt either game to your group. You could use Destiny's character generation and then just run it like a normal RPG. Or, like I said, you could use AToW's archetype characters and just jump into the game.
Honestly, even though both games are perfectly viable options, I still miss MW 2nd edition. I'm well-and-truly kicking myself for getting rid of my old rulebook.
-
To be honest, I figured most folks who might play would have the Destiny beta so it would be easy for everyone to reference rules without people having to take photos of books to share or type out sections when discussing what might happen. So it was mostly a common frame of reference, and then it sounded like it might be easier to accomplish online by going that route.
-
Is it possible to play MWD without cues and run with one GM as normal RPG?
-
Is it possible to play MWD without cues and run with one GM as normal RPG?
Yes, and it's covered in the rulebook.
-
Yes, and it's covered in the rulebook.
Great. I'll check it when I got a rulebook. Thank you.
-
Is it possible to play MWD without cues and run with one GM as normal RPG?
I think I would use Cues as a +1 bonus if you could use it in a scene.
-
I think I would use Cues as a +1 bonus if you could use it in a scene.
Interesting. I think that would make the game more heroic and meant to follow a cues.
-
I tried asking this over in the New Releases thread, but I think it (understandably) got drowned out. ;D
Now that Destiny is released, is there any chance we might see the character sheets uploaded to the site soon? The rulebook already directs people to download them from here, but I don't see them anywhere, and the book itself only includes the Mech hardware template. It'd be nice to have access to the other unit types.
Also, any chance we might see a new forum section for Destiny discussion?
-
the character sheets are being worked on
-
Awesome, thanks!
-
Honestly, even though both games are perfectly viable options, I still miss MW 2nd edition. I'm well-and-truly kicking myself for getting rid of my old rulebook.
I started toying with the idea of a BattleTech RPG campaig vor the first time in 15 years or so last year. I had just written a couple of pages of house rules on character generation, when MW:D dropped during the KS. I liked the concept, but was eager to play then, not when the delivery was due.
Then I decided on playing Traveller again and now I have no spare time for MW:D. ;D ::)
-
Question for the inner circle:
I read the announcement for MW:D in my mails the other day. Does that mean that webshop customers will be able to get MW:D before KS backers get it during wave one of the KS?
-
yes
though this was not a promised exclusive and was already well on the way before the KS - participation got us access to the beta and feedback process.
now, if the wave 1 mechs start showing up in retail before the backers get them, that's a super bad look.
-
I would have loved a second beta phase to look through how things got revised and offer additional feedback before it got released but I guess it is a bit late for that now.
-
I would have loved a second beta phase to look through how things got revised and offer additional feedback before it got released but I guess it is a bit late for that now.
The Combat Manual only had 1 beta run for feedback and fin tuning so this was on par. Unless you just wanted a second bit at the apple, no real reason to hold up the actual production short of the whole thing being a train wreck.
-
i didn't get a chance to look closely at the beta but it appears on the surface that no radical changes were made (a few sections shifted around). the page count discrepancy between the two is mostly due to the addition of the index in the retail release. unsure how much testing was needed for what mostly seems to qualify as "adjustments"
can anyone with knowledge comment on the changes? maybe there's more going on under the hood
-
The layout alone was so terrible that yeah to me it needed a second beta phase with all the other little tidbits that others found on top of that.
-
I hadn't been following the development of this game system, so I'm not sure if this has been covered elsewhere already; but going forward, are there plans to cover alternate eras and factions in "companion" volumes, or would this material be put into future sourcebooks the way that A Time of War material has been since that game system was introduced?
-
The layout alone was so terrible that yeah to me it needed a second beta phase with all the other little tidbits that others found on top of that.
that's fair. i haven't done a side by side comparison to see how layout was affected.
I hadn't been following the development of this game system, so I'm not sure if this has been covered elsewhere already; but going forward, are there plans to cover alternate eras and factions in "companion" volumes, or would this material be put into future sourcebooks the way that A Time of War material has been since that game system was introduced?
sales probably has a lot to do with that. it could range from "we'll never speak of this again" to "stand-alone books." i would imagine any destiny-focused era expansions would be PDF only
-
*nod*
As much as my tastes do not mesh with Cue based systems I actually do hope MW:D succeeds. Because that would be a clear indication there is a market for the RPG aspect of Battletech and well AToW does need some revising before it can properly serve that need in ways MW:D isn't designed to.
-
I hadn't been following the development of this game system, so I'm not sure if this has been covered elsewhere already; but going forward, are there plans to cover alternate eras and factions in "companion" volumes, or would this material be put into future sourcebooks the way that A Time of War material has been since that game system was introduced?
In an early pre-beta interview I think Brent from CGL was saying it might want a Clan companion book, but perhaps the Clan appendix it now has covers off that idea. Other than that they have talked about both Destiny and ATOW being supported with material in future sourcebooks, so that is presumably the normal way it will get extra material, rather than standalone Destiny products.
For example I imagine future Touring the Stars, Turning Point etc type products might get some Destiny stuff going forward.
-
I like the slight changes they made and the layout is much improved.
-
a quick readthrough gives me a lot of FATE vibes
-
now, if the wave 1 mechs start showing up in retail before the backers get them, that's a super bad look.
I have no problem with the retailers who backed the kickstarter getting their stuff on sale before I get my stuff. In fact, I think they should be able to.
I would have an issue if it gets through the distribution chain before I get my mitts on the new shinys.
-
the retail tier isn't one i had considered. yeah, that's cool.
-
So on the FB kickstarter page someone has posted a link to down load the sheets for Mechwarrior Destiny
https://www.everythingbattletech.com/forum?p=post%2Frecord-sheets-10576082%3Fpid%3D1311860029%26random%3D30864%26fbclid%3DIwAR2N7cd0padRuHS3oIXqWz9gxneJWXd5IZZPHqm5Q_oIVOxRAnF-9NyFHIQ
Are these the official sheets from Catalyst?
-
they lack any copyright info that's on almost everything
the sheets are now up on the downloads page and appear to be the same
https://bg.battletech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CAT35185RS_MechWarrior-Destiny-Character-Sheet-Blanks.pdf
-
a quick readthrough gives me a lot of FATE vibes
This is actually exactly what excited me about it in the first place. After watching a group play FATE on YouTube, I became a huge fan of that style of roleplaying. It rewards people for approaching obstacles not in the most mechanically optimal way, but in the way that's most in character.
I understand the complaints about the round-robin style of GMing that Destiny presents by default. But it's totally possible to play it like a FATE game with a standard GM that limits the power players have over encounters and NPCs, and that's what I've been looking forward to. There's even an optional rule for a more standard GM experience in the book.
-
Yeah it’s cool with me since I own basically all of the fate books ;D
-
Are these the official sheets from Catalyst?
They’re on the downloads page. They shouldn’t be redistributed but instead the link to the page should be distributed. The question you asked just underlines that.
(I know that’s not your page and you didn’t post them. I’m just saying.)