MechWarrior: Destiny

[Daryk]

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.

[monbvol]

*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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[Sartris]

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

[Daryk]

I still maintain Destiny is even more in the wrong direction on many counts.

[Sartris]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Panthros]

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!

[Talen5000]

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.

[ActionButler]

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?

[victor_shaw]

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.

[ActionButler]

For me, the simple character creation in Destiny is an advantage and not a flaw. Otherwise, I agree with most of your points.

[Daryk]

I'm not seeing the "too generic" aspect of AToW characters?  Can you expand on that thought a bit?

[monbvol]

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.

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Daryk]

I've never used the Warchest system... what about it is similar to Destiny's narrative rules?

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Daryk]

Rog... I have to say I don't find anything about Destiny intuitive, so I'm still mystified...

[victor_shaw]

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.

[Talen5000]

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.

[victor_shaw]

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

[Daryk]

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]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[monbvol]

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.

[Daryk]

Certainly... execution could always be improved.

[Talen5000]

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.

[nckestrel]

Yes. Finish the battle in less than an hour. 

[SteelShrike]

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.

[Bedwyr]

Well we're all about unproductive discussion here at the official Battletech forums.  ;D