The system might have "more number crunching than it needs", but I think it works on balance.
It' not a question of balance or does it work. It's about the perception that new players get from it.
The path system is suppose to guide new player towards creation of a character that would exist in the BTU.
Instead it hits them with large groups of numbers then tell them to take every thing they just did run it through a filter and start spending again.
I know you and others have made spreadsheets to help, but there is a difference from say Herolab, Chummer, PCGen, Etc. that run you through the character creation process and an excel spreadsheet that just organizes the number.
The filler issue is why I think the later life paths are so generic. Those pages could easily have been spent on giving us faction flavored Academies, Tours of Duty, etc.
I agree with you here.
I see the small amounts of XP thrown at various expensive traits as simply a way to get the player to consider buying the Trait later. I think this is a great idea, and helps make more diverse characters in the end.
And if it work that would be fine but lets face it, it doesn't work.
In the many character I have made and seen made, most if not all players just optimize these traits out.
If you want a trait to be looked at as something that most characters from that background would have, then at least give it 1/2 or more of the required xp.
If Fit was set to 100 xp, I would say that most players would invest the other 100 xp as fit is a good trait, but as it stands 15 xp (less the 8%) is not at all inticing players to take the trait, as they are still missing 92% of the required XP.
Fields are presented in a way that lets GMs make their own easily (just count up the number of skills you want a field to have, and give a rebate based on that number). That is nothing but pure win in my book.
Not sure I fellow you here.
The instruction given on page. 71 do let you create your own field packs, but what does that have to do with not just listing the pack prices and having the players do the math, as they are always the same.
Why list just the MechWarrior Field and not list MechWarrior Field ( 120 xp)?
I'm not sure what you mean by "too many level of skills that use different formulas"... Are you talking about the Simple/Complex//Basic/Advanced construct? The differentiation is actually not that hard to understand. Or are you talking about Tiered Skills specifically? I fear this issue inevitably leads to the "2d6 isn't granular enough for an RPG" discussion.
I was talking about Simple Basic, Simple Advanced, Complex Basic, Complex Advanced, Unskilled Basic, Unskilled Advanced, and on top of that the Tiered Skills system.
With each having a different formulas. While it not hard to comprehend after you get it down, it's a obstacle to new players.
I can't disagree about the layout. It could use some (ok, a LOT of) work.
You would have to be insane to disagree here. This is an ongoing issues with most CGL products.
I already addressed "filler", and am in complete agreement. If a company really feels a need to include fiction in a RULE book, one story per book makes a heck of a lot more sense than one story per CHAPTER.
I could be down with a 5 or 10 page story in the rule book to set the tone, but 35 pages of story are a bit much.
I can see why eight pages were given to conversion rules in the Companion. Given the fiction/filler problem, I really can't see this meriting mention.
I can't, conversion rules are a side thing that in practice never work right and longtime GM or player will tell you lose the feel of your PC/NPC ever time.
I have know problem with them existing, just with them taking up space that could have been used for Academies, Martial arts packages, etc. in a book that I paid for.
I agree Martial Arts could have used more work. But I'm not unhappy with what it got.
Again, they work but are just a list of maneuvers with no flavor or binding.
Like the conversion rules, I can see 12 pages for rank tables for that "faction flavor" we all seem to want. Could it have been presented more efficiently? Probably.
The table are overblown, over colored, and could have easily been reduced to 1 or 2 pages if properly laid out.
Your issues with Advanced Tactical Combat really need to be explained in more detail. I have no idea what you find inappropriate about them. ???
This would be a long conversation that I have already had to many times and am not looking forward to having again unless during a beta or revision discussion with the writers. So I'll leave it there for now.
As far as character sheets, they really need to be in the book. Like it or not, not everyone who can obtain a hard copy can use a pdf (for an uncountable number of reasons). Completeness alone demands the sheet be in the book. Should sheets be included in digital versions of the book as separate documents? Absolutely! And yes, they should be available as free downloads too.
I will give you the character sheet even though I never used the ones from the books (Official PDF or fan made), but there are things like the planetary maps, Combat charts, relisting of table like the master skill/trait tables that if not already a free PDF off the site or on the GM screen, are not all that useful in the back of the book when they are already listed in the section they are used in.
Again for the most part I like AToW.
I just think in presentation, layout, and character creation it pushes new and some old players away.
