A Time of War 2nd edition?

[Paul]

It's based on the rewards we want you to give individual players per session. We wanted that simple and easy, and scaled up from there.

[Daryk]

Here's a quick (2 page) outline I whipped up in Word... opinions?

[victor_shaw]

I got this part, I just haven't crunched the numbers to see what happens. Its interesting, but I presume that CGL didn't do it on this scale for some reason (presumably). I don't know if it would be better or not.

I was looking at the fact that big number (adding or multiplication) tend to scare players away, and was looking for the easiest way to mod the system to keep the general idea and  reduce the size of the numbers to keep players from dismissing it before they even try the system.
I will say that most of the players I have tried to introduce to AToW looked at the 5,000 XP and bocked almost immediately at the system.
So they when in with a bias from the start. As I have said before the mechanics of the game itself work well it just getting to them from the character creation side.

It's based on the rewards we want you to give individual players per session. We wanted that simple and easy, and scaled up from there.

Not sure I follow how 5,000 XP is simple or easier then 500 XP?
But that could be just me  ???

Fast Learner might need a boost to make it worth while. And we already boosted it once. Maybe drop the cost.

You need a huge amount of sessions just to *break even* on the initial investment. At which point you're welcome to the benefits. Every other player has been getting benefits on their Traits the whole time you were still working just to get to break even.

Buying off Slow Learner? Well, like you said, not the job of the RPG to prevent people from doing so.


I'll see if that can be looked at.

I was more getting to the point that if a Trait becomes the have to have or have to buy-off (Slow Learner for Clanners) then is it really needed.
I would just get rid of it and up the cost of the Clan Modules its in by 300 XP or what ever you change it to.

As for the part of my post that has got the lest attention,
The generic nature of the Tour of Duties and Military Academy Modules. Where volume of numbers and the back and forth of Character creation has been a problem for both me and my player. The generic nature is even more of a problem for me. The funny thing is it was done better (not great) within AToW already with the Covert ops. training.

For all the good changes made from 3rd to AToW, the dumbing down of these Modules was not one of them. 
Now I have heard the book space and power-creep argument and don't see them as an issues.

1. Book Space: This one can be handled with a PDF even one that cost. I can tell you that I would buy a PDF that adds this missing Flavor to the game and I think others would to.

2. Power-creep: Again not an issues with AToW as all the paths in any given Life stage seem to have the same point values. So you would be adding flavor and distinctive skill sets to the character and not making him/her more powerful then the rest. Even a PDF that just takes the existing 3rd edition paths and converts them to AToW Modules would easily fix this issues for me at least. 

[Daryk]

I agree power creep wouldn't be a problem, but page count is not so easily dismissed.  New products are hard to do, no matter how easy they look at first glance.

[Talen5000]

I got this part, I just haven't crunched the numbers to see what happens. Its interesting, but I presume that CGL didn't do it on this scale for some reason (presumably). I don't know if it would be better or not.

I don't see that it would do anything except remove granularity. The rebate for the study fields would also be affected.

[Robroy]

Here's a quick (2 page) outline I whipped up in Word... opinions?

I am of the opinion that, that would have taken me a day. It looks good, biggest thing that jumped out at me was some of the text were not lined up, no big. Looking forward to more.

[Robroy]

I don't see that it would do anything except remove granularity. The rebate for the study fields would also be affected.

I never understood the reason for the rebate. Why not just reduce the cost of those fields?

[Daryk]

What they did was apply a general procedure to all fields vice fiddling with each one individually.  It seems more elegant to me this way.

And thanks for the feedback... I'll try pasting it into Excel to line things up a little more cleanly.

[Talen5000]

I never understood the reason for the rebate. Why not just reduce the cost of those fields?

No idea.

I could posit certain advantages...the rebate going into a rebate pool that can be spent only after character generation, or ensuring that various tricks aren't used such as ensuring a field can't be bought, or ensuring a degree of flexibility in that Clan training has different rebates

But the way the rules read, it is a dimple cost reduction and may as well be written as such.

Unless I'm missing something, only a rules lawyer of a GM might prevent me buying a field package when I have enough XP for it with the rebate, but just fall short without it.

[Robroy]

Yeah I get that. It is just, to me, it would have reduced some of the math if TPTB had just said " you get this field of six skills, each at 30xp for 144xp" as opposed to "count up the skills, multiple by 30, and get back 6 for each skill".

[victor_shaw]

No idea.

I could posit certain advantages...the rebate going into a rebate pool that can be spent only after character generation, or ensuring that various tricks aren't used such as ensuring a field can't be bought, or ensuring a degree of flexibility in that Clan training has different rebates

But the way the rules read, it is a dimple cost reduction and may as well be written as such.

Unless I'm missing something, only a rules lawyer of a GM might prevent me buying a field package when I have enough XP for it with the rebate, but just fall short without it.

Well the truth is that rebated packs have existed since 2nd edition, can't remember if they where in 1st will have to look into that.
I will say that in 2nd they gave you the rebated cost up front and you did not have to do the math yourself.

[victor_shaw]

Yeah I get that. It is just, to me, it would have reduced some of the math if TPTB had just said " you get this field of six skills, each at 30xp for 144xp" as opposed to "count up the skills, multiple by 30, and get back 6 for each skill".

Like in 2nd  ;D

[Robroy]

Like in 2nd  ;D

Dear lord. I had forgot that, but in my defense, it has been something like 20 years since I looked at it.

[victor_shaw]

I agree power creep wouldn't be a problem, but page count is not so easily dismissed.  New products are hard to do, no matter how easy they look at first glance.

I don't really see the issues here.
We have the 3rd edition paths to work from so most of the work is done, it's just down to smoothing them out and working up a point cost.
The only reasons I have not done it myself are:
1. Not sure about the point to point scale between 3rd and 4th
2. Have been busy with college for the last 4 years (just graduated)
3. My players tend not to like GM made Paths/Module because, if the company comes out with their own they can wind-up being under or overpowered. (happened a lot with Star Wars FFG) So they tend to like official rule
4. And recently wanted to see if CGL was going to do anything to change the current character creation rule.

edit: forgot two
5. Would not be able to post them due to legal reason, as even if they where good It may keep CGL from doing it to avoid issues.
6. If CGL ever wanted to due it I would feel like I was doing their job for them.

[monbvol]

One of my bigger efforts was going through and re-working the fields so that they are all 5 skill fields for my house rules.

Sure you might need another field or two to pull off your character concept but it makes it super easy to figure out rebates.

[Daryk]

Different sized skill fields are exactly why they went the way they did.  2nd edition had many fewer options, so it made more sense to do them individually.

And here's the XL version of the outline.  It looks like it's going to print with a much smaller font for some reason, but it looks ok on screen.

[Maelwys]

It's based on the rewards we want you to give individual players per session. We wanted that simple and easy, and scaled up from there.

Ah, there we go. There was the hook that was wriggling in the back of my mind.

Not sure I follow how 5,000 XP is simple or easier then 500 XP?
But that could be just me  ???

Its not that 5000 XP is easier to work with than 500, its the scale of the matter. In ATOW, 1 XP is worth 1/100th of an attribute, where as in your system, 1 XP is worth 1/10th of an attribute. Quite a difference. Now, that might not necessarily be a deal breaker for you, but that's where the scale of the system came from and the 5000.

[Daryk]

Put that way, it makes even more sense.  Attributes should be hard to raise, since they impact a wide range of skills.

[victor_shaw]

Its not that 5000 XP is easier to work with than 500, its the scale of the matter. In ATOW, 1 XP is worth 1/100th of an attribute, where as in your system, 1 XP is worth 1/10th of an attribute. Quite a difference. Now, that might not necessarily be a deal breaker for you, but that's where the scale of the system came from and the 5000.

So instead of give 10 or 20 XP as the rules suggest you give 1 or 2.
Still not seeing the issue?

And just to be clearer, the 1/10 idea was just a suggestion so that the system did not have to be totally overhauled not a demand or requirement by me.
It was a brain storm by me and some of my players as to a system change that would get them to try playing the game again.
If you, CGl, or anyone else came up with a better one that work I would not stick my nose up at it because it was that my idea.  :thumbsup:

[Paul]

So instead of give 10 or 20 XP as the rules suggest you give 1 or 2.

It doesn't suggest 10-20. It suggests 1 or 2 already.
See the table on p. 332. Everything radiates outward from that. That table and the one on page 85 is how this all got started in early 2009.

I agree that rebates were a mistake. If I get a shot at an overhaul, they'd disappear. You'd just have a value per field that has the rebate factored in already.
We also agree that Points Based would be presented as the baseline chargen, while modules become optional.

[victor_shaw]

It doesn't suggest 10-20. It suggests 1 or 2 already.
See the table on p. 332. Everything radiates outward from that. That table and the one on page 85 is how this all got started in early 2009.

I agree that rebates were a mistake. If I get a shot at an overhaul, they'd disappear. You'd just have a value per field that has the rebate factored in already.
We also agree that Points Based would be presented as the baseline chargen, while modules become optional.

Was going off the statment on p.330
"In most cases, the total XP earned by a player will not be much higher than 10XP for a normal session without exceptional events. During particularly good sessions, it may
approach 20XP."

[Robroy]

I know I am in the minority, but I always liked the modules. They helped me develop my characters background.

They also help with reasons for having other skills.

[Paul]

Was going off the statment on p.330
"In most cases, the total XP earned by a player will not be much higher than 10XP for a normal session without exceptional events. During particularly good sessions, it may
approach 20XP."

Yes. Because of an accumulation of 1-2 point items.

[Paul]

I was more getting to the point that if a Trait becomes the have to have or have to buy-off (Slow Learner for Clanners) then is it really needed.
I would just get rid of it and up the cost of the Clan Modules its in by 300 XP or what ever you change it to.

Must have: most people think that of Fast learner, but only because they don't do the math. They realize: at some point, it becomes free XP, but don't see that "at some point" might be 3-4 years of gameplay if you have 1 session per month.

Must sell: same thing really. Plus it reinforces the 'burn bright, but burn up' approach. You likely shouldn't be alive anymore by the time the break even point of Slow Learner kicks in and you start losing XP. Meanwhile, it gives you a boost up front.

[victor_shaw]

Must have: most people think that of Fast learner, but only because they don't do the math. They realize: at some point, it becomes free XP, but don't see that "at some point" might be 3-4 years of gameplay if you have 1 session per month.

Must sell: same thing really. Plus it reinforces the 'burn bright, but burn up' approach. You likely shouldn't be alive anymore by the time the break even point of Slow Learner kicks in and you start losing XP. Meanwhile, it gives you a boost up front.

While this is true if you use only the Corebook to make your characters, once you add in the Random Life Event Roll from the AToW, which every game I played in used, (Both mine and other GMs) most Clanners and Mechwarrior get a +1 or +2 to the roll for an average of 7 to 10 on the roll (neutral to positive results). This tends to disappear quickly.

Yes. Because of an accumulation of 1-2 point items.

This aside, why does character creation have to be exactly the same as in game advancement?
you could lower it only during character creation and raise it back up for the game, it's been done in other game to good effect.
Again not saying that this is the only way it could work, it was just a thought to keep new players from (fairly or unfairly) dismissing the game do to the large numbers.

As the point of this thread was original to talk about things that may need to be changed or at least streamline in the game here are my thoughts,
IMHO
1. Some Life Modules need to be less generic (Tour of Duty, Military Academy, Etc) to bring back the flavor lost from 2nd and 3rd.

2. Character creation point system needs to be toned down. There are way to many places where a minor math error can throw-off the calculations either against or in favor of the PC. And even thou its simple adding and subtract with as small amount of multiplication and division. the amount of it can quickly become a turn-off to player.

3. As has been said, the Skill Fields need a set cost.

4. Missing information about Battlearmor needs to be added, pack charges, effects on attributes, AToW level movement modifiers, etc.

5. Some Battletech Board game Modifier Charts with Skill used and Mods in AToW terms for quick reference during Mech combat (Lets not kid ourselves Mechwarriors are what most players are going to be 8))

And I'm sure there are other just can't think of them right now.

[monbvol]

Points 4 and 5 are already largely covered by AToW but I'll admit it is kind of hard to find them in a quick manner.

Point 3 likewise is already technically true in AToW module build, the costs are fixed, but again to be fair because it isn't clear or easy to work out rebates is a large reason why I did go through and re-work the fields to be universally 5 skills each for my house rules.

2 is largely going to be subjective but again something I actually wouldn't argue against too much.

1 can be handled easily enough with either supplemental material or house rules.

[Daryk]

1 doesn't even need house rules... the Flex built into all those modules easily covers customization.

For 2 and 3, I still don't see the issue with arithmetic.  Math is NOT scary.  If they can do the turn to turn math for a 'mech in TW (or even Alpha Strike), they can do the math for AToW.

Monbvol is right about 4 and 5.

[BiggRigg42]

As the point of this thread was original to talk about things that may need to be changed or at least streamline in the game here are my thoughts,
IMHO
…

4. Missing information about Battlearmor needs to be added, pack charges, effects on attributes, AToW level movement modifiers, etc.

...

I do not think AToW is missing rules for battle armor. Although, the rules could be made more obvious. It is possible to deduce the AToW movement modifiers and damage as I demonstrate in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9n6xNEAboA&list=PLW4v4K6PB7qIWAumfYAqdfxOlk4OgDOTD&index=9&t=29s

There is also no reason for battle armor to effect attributes. The attributes should be the same, but the modifiers to--say--a strength attribute check when in battle armor should make the roll easier as the GM decides.

I wrote and posted the TW to AToW conversion rules later in the thread, but I feel that they should be here. So, I'm posting them in this post below as well.

Total Warfare to AToW Conversation Rules for Battle Armor

To convert a suit of battle armor’s armor value from TW to AToW, first count the number of tactical armor points on the battle armor’s TW sheet and then consult the BATTLE ARMOR BAR TABLE on page 187 of AToW. The number of tactical armor points of the battle armor TW sheet corresponds to the “Tactical Armor” column of the BATTLE ARMOR BAR TABLE, which then determines the AToW values for that battle armor. This comes from page 186 of AToW: “This armor [battle armor] has special effects in standard play…based on the armor’s starting number of tactical armor points.”

To convert a suit of battle armor’s speed from TW to AToW, understand that 1 TW MP = 15 meters of AToW speed. So, multiply the amount of ground MPs on a battle armor’s TW sheet by 15 to yield that battle armor’s AToW speed in meters per turn.
This is the case because each TW turn lasts 10 seconds, each TW hex represents 30 meters, and each AToW turn lasts for 5 seconds. Consequently, we get a very simple mathematical formula to solve for AToW speed, which I set equal to X:
[(30 meters) / (10seconds)] = [(X meters)/ (5 seconds)]
It is elementary to deduce that X=15. Thus, 1 TW MP = 15 meters of AToW speed because of math. In AToW, the GM can convert meters to MPs as they see fit (from, page 167 of AToW) to more clearly define how many TW MPs equate to how many AToW MPs. 

[Daryk]

Well... lifting capacity is directly related to STR, and Cargo Lifters directly affect that, so... It's kind of hard to represent that via modifiers.

[BiggRigg42]

Well... lifting capacity is directly related to STR, and Cargo Lifters directly affect that, so... It's kind of hard to represent that via modifiers.

I know STR determines a PC's encumbrance level, but I didn't see that limiting how much a PC can lift. For instance, a max deadlift for one repetition will be way more than how much you can carry on your back without being encumbered. So, how I would run it is like this:

Let's say you can deadlift 300lb.s if you pass a STR check with a -3 difficulty modifier. However, if you are in battle armor or power armor, you can now deadlift 300lb.s with a +1 difficultly modifier. Those modifiers are completely arbitrary and based on GM discretion.