MechWarrior: Destiny

[Talen5000]

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.

[ActionButler]

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.

[Daryk]

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]

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.

[Daryk]

Destiny completely breaks the board game.  An Assassin shouldn't be able to take down a Hunchback without taking damage.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Talen5000]

*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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[nckestrel]

"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?

[Daryk]

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.

[ActionButler]

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?

[Daryk]

Things like your character could be used on the tabletop, a 2d6 dice mechanic, etc.

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

And to be clear, the weapons that are analogs of modern firearms are MUCH less likely to result in damage.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[monbvol]

*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.

[ActionButler]

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?

[Daryk]

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?  ???

[Asgo]

...
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.

[Daryk]

Except for that "compatibility with the tabletop rules", sure.

[Asgo]

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. ;)

[Daryk]

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.

[ActionButler]

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.

[Daryk]

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?

[monbvol]

*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.