MechWarrior: Destiny

[Talen5000]

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.

[Talen5000]

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

[Daryk]

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...

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Sharpnel]

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

[Daryk]

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?  ???

[Talen5000]

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.

[Daryk]

A parallel vehicular combat system would require even more page count to convert to the tabletop, whether its in AToW or not.

[DarkSpade]

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)

[Daryk]

That sounds like a recipe for trouble.  And the min/max stuff was what the 3rd edition thresholds were about.

[Talen5000]

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.

[dgorsman]

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.

[Daryk]

*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.

[monbvol]

*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.

[Daryk]

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).

[Apocal]

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.

[monbvol]

That still involves mechs as a major focus though.

[DarkSpade]

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.

[Daryk]

Every GM will have a different view of the rule... there would be very little consistency, and that's bad for a game system.

[DarkSpade]

No different from any other time a RPG rules system hits a snag.  In the end the GM always has final say regardless.

[Daryk]

True, but if you can avoid creating those snags in design, so much the better.  That's basically what we're discussing here.

[Lorcan Nagle]

  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.

[Daryk]

Yet more support for the emphasis being on the first word of "BattleTech RPG"...

[Talen5000]

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.