BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => A Time of War => Topic started by: victor_shaw on 15 June 2019, 08:48:45
-
Let me first start by saying game mechanics wise, 4th edition works well.
But there are some major issues with the character creation system I feel should be addressed.
1. The point cost/advancement points are way out there for what is needed, dividing the cost by ten would accomplish the same goal without having to use a calculator or spreadsheet.
2. There is a major lack of personality to the life paths, where 3rd and 2nd to a leaser extend (due to being phased out midway through the field manuals) had different schools and their flavors, and 3rd with its wider range of Tour of Duties gave you a feeling that you where unique. 4th feel way to generic and tends to make everyone the same who follows a certain path (Mechwarrior, Clan Mechwarrior, Pilot, etc.)
3. 4th has a major problem with useless traits and skills being given during character creation. Such as the Clans getting "Fit +5" what is the point of this it truly gets you no closer to the Fit trait requiring you to pay 95 more points. that's like needing $100 to buy a new book and asking you parent for Christmas and they put a down payment on it of $5 and tell you to pay the rest out of the Christmas money they gave you, what was the point? This happens with skills to, where the paths give you +5 in a skill when the min to get rank 0 is 20. If we used the divide 10 idea above that would be half a point. All of this seems to be a waste as most if not all players I know just optimize these points out and spend them where they want.
As I said above the general mechanics of the game are fine, but getting players past character creation is where this game drives players away.
And before I have to here it again I am not saying the the math is mathematically hard and can't be done, I am saying that there is to much of it, the systems is to generic, and it waste to many points on useless traits and skills that player just optimize out anyway.
Now that Catalyst is reprinting the core books I just thought that would be a great time to fix and update the system to take care of some of these issues.
-
The point of smaller than necessary amounts of XP in traits is to encourage a player that direction without forcing them to take it. For negative traits, it's also how you get around the maximum of 10% of your starting XP for "bought" XP. Negative traits acquired via the modules don't count against that limit.
I also think there's plenty of flexibility built into the schools and life modules. If a character doesn't want to be "cookie cutter", they've got more than enough choice in the form of Flex XP and outright "this or that" options.
Dividing by 10 would further complicate traits like Fast Learner. Personally, I don't mind using a spreadsheet to speed things up.
-
The point of smaller than necessary amounts of XP in traits is to encourage a player that direction without forcing them to take it. For negative traits, it's also how you get around the maximum of 10% of your starting XP for "bought" XP. Negative traits acquired via the modules don't count against that limit.
You seem to miss the point I was making. +5 for Fit is not encouragement to buy Fit in 99.9% of cases, its just +5 points that get optimized at the end and put somewhere else. All my players will get rid of it during this phase if they did not get anything that brought it close to finished.
If you where looking to suggest traits to a player and not force them to take them all you would have to do is add a line [Suggested Traits] to the path and have a [Required Trait] line for the ones they have to take.
I also think there's plenty of flexibility built into the schools and life modules. If a character doesn't want to be "cookie cutter", they've got more than enough choice in the form of Flex XP and outright "this or that" options.
What I was addressing was that in the 2nd and 3rd edition, we had the schools stated out and different enough that if I went to the NAIS College of Military Sciences and another player went to Sakhara Academy they felt like they had different experience and training. If one player took Tour of Duty: Clan it felt different that the other who took Tour of Duty: Snow Raven Naval Officer or Tour of Duty: Joint Nova Cat/Combine Exercises. All the systems had the ability to spend points where you wanted to flush out you characters, this in its self does not ad flavor flexibility to the build. That is accomplished by players going to the Sun Zhang Mechwarrior Academy being trained in Blade or and Martial Arts where some from the Thorin Academy gets training in tactic over martial skills.
Dividing by 10 would further complicate traits like Fast Learner. Personally, I don't mind using a spreadsheet to speed things up.
Don't get me started on Slow and Fast Learner.
If I had a choice these would be the first things to go.
I have yet in any of the multiple 3rd and AToW games I have played in to find a Clanner who doesn't buy off Slow learner or a Innersphere player who doesn't buy Fast Learner. These to me over complicate the system for no purpose.
-
1) Its entirely possible dividing by 10 would've worked (I haven't poked at the math really to see). There may be a reason for the values though (obviously some skill values don't divide evenly, but a bit of rounding might not be too problematic.).
2) There were 2 problems with 3rd Edition that the generic-ness of ATOW's life paths addresses (IMO). The first is what in other games would be called "codex creep" where as time went on some 3rd Edition Life Paths where just BETTER than what came before (In fairness, this creep problem is also solved by the ATOW modules having point costs)
A second issue is timing. 3rd Edition was released over such a period of time that the Life Paths were spread out over just as many years. Early Field Manuals have RPG rules for 2nd Edition, while after 3rd was released, the Field Manuals had rules for 3rd Edition, and those factions with early Field Manuals languished with 2nd Edition rules for a long time. The same would've happened with ATOW if they had tried to make specialized Life Paths for each faction. It took something like 10 years for all the Handbooks to come out. Imagine telling Kuritan players that they won't get their Kurita-specific lifepaths until the Kuritan Handbook came out...
Sure, you can shove faction specific life Paths into the main book to avoid this timing problem, but now you're looking at having dozens of extra Life Paths, and that makes the book so much bigger. Imagine having to have the space for a House Specific Academy (maybe 2 if you want to have a "Good" Academy and a "Bad" Academy. Oh, and their own ToD as well. And maybe their own Organized Crime Modules. And then add in the Periphery factions. And the Clans. 3rd Edition got to the point where there was a book almost entirely dedicated to Life Paths alone.
The ATOW system with the Affiliations allows for people to make characters with some factional flavoring, without having to go overboard and coming up with dozens of extra Life Paths and figuring out where to publish them and how to do it in a schedule that doesn't make some factions wait years for their paths.
And yeah, it can lead to feeling like some of the characters are cookie cutters, but Affiliations, Flex points and Optimization at the end should be enough points to make them actual characters.
3) These aren't so much useless traits (since the traits are useful), they're just not given enough points to full develop them. I treat them as possible hooks for the character that you can explore if you want to, or not. The best part about it with the Optimization system is that the hook is basically free.
Its more like a pre-order than a Christmas present. "Oh hey, you want this trait, you can spend 5 points on it now to start the process. And if in the end you decide you don't want it, you don't have to buy it AND we'll refund the points."
If ATOW didn't allow for the Optimization of points, then yeah, I think the awarding of non-fully actualized traits and skills would be an annoying thing, but you don't lose anything if you decide you don't want it.
-
I'm with Maelwys on points 2 and 3. As for 1, I see those 5 points here and there as just part of the very loose framework they described at the end. Not dividing by 10 means not having to deal with rounding issues (which can be abused).
-
I do sometimes wish there was more flex points in the various Life Modules so you could play around with the Module at the time that you select it, but that's usually tempered at the end when I realize that pretty much HALF of your XP (or so it always seems to me after optimization) is Flex XP in the end.
I can see the appeal of wanting more crunch (faction specific academies, ToDs, etc), but that crunch isn't free. You have to have space in the book for it, you have to get it out in a reasonable time scale, and you have to police it (less of a problem with ATOW, as opposed to the open 3rd Edition).
Oh, another reason to keep it generic is it allows for you to use it in any era with minor changes to the affiliation rather than the Life Paths themselves.
-
Yep, and that's exactly how they did it in Era Report: 3052 (tweaks to affiliations).
-
OK some of this I will chalk-up to me not being clear.
What I was suggesting was cleaning the paths up and reducing the point values across the board, not just taking what was there and dividing by 10
ex.
Random Path: not named or some thing
Module cost: 30 XP
Prerequisites: what ever
Fixed XPs: 30
[Attributes] STR (+10), BOD (+10), RFL (+7), INT (-2 XP), CHA (–5 XP);
[Traits] [Traits] Equipped (–5 XP), Fit (+10 XP), Illiterate (–7 XP), Toughness (+7 XP),Wealth (–7 XP);
[Skill] Language/Affiliation (+1 XP), Martial Arts (+1 XP), Melee Weapons (+1 XP), Navigation/Ground (+1 XP), Perception (+1), Running (+1 XP),
Survival/Any (+1 XP), Tracking/Wilds (+1 XP)
Flexible XPs: +4 XP each to any two Attributes or Traits
Also changing the "EXPERIENCE POINT (XP) COSTS TABLE" to
Level/Score Trait/ Attribute Level Standard
0 N/A 2
1 10 3
2 20 5
3 30 8
4 40 12
5 50 17
6 60 23
7 70 30
8 80 38
9 90 47
10 100 57
11+ (Level x 10) N/A
-
I do have some issues about character generation myself, bit mainly in that it seems over complicated.
Then there are the side issues....as an example, maybe I'm just not seeing it, but any time I create a ToW character, I fund myself missing the Quirk trait. Replacing it with Compulsion just doesn't work. Specialisations also seem underdeveloped.
Things like that.
1. The point cost/advancement points are way out there for what is needed, dividing the cost by ten would accomplish the same goal without having to use a calculator or spreadsheet.
Its workable.
2. There is a major lack of personality to the life paths, where 3rd and 2nd to a leaser extend (due to being phased out midway through the field manuals) had different schools and their flavors, and 3rd with its wider range of Tour of Duties gave you a feeling that you where unique. 4th feel way to generic and tends to make everyone the same who follows a certain path (Mechwarrior, Clan Mechwarrior, Pilot, etc.)
Third edition was also very random and received a lot more material.
3. 4th has a major problem with useless traits and skills being given during character creation. Such as the Clans getting "Fit +5" what is the point of this it truly gets you no closer to the Fit trait requiring you to pay 95 more points.
The point is to simply reflect your characters life path. Giving Clan characters +5 to Fit reflects that Clan society encourages physical fitness but it doesn't force the character to take the trait.
Personally, I would suggest banning optimisation as even sub optimal traits represent work and experience done towards a goal, or reflect aspects of ones character and society that can make interesting hooks.
So...ATOW does need improving, but I don't think your issues are where its problems lie.
-
Reducing the modules in scope would make characters even more generic, so I'm even less sure now what you'd gain by dividing by 10...
-
Reducing the modules in scope would make characters even more generic, so I'm even less sure now what you'd gain by dividing by 10...
I'm not sure where your getting your math but reducing -50 to -5 does nothing to change the scope of the Module?
All it does is reduce the over numbers by 1/10 from what they are right now.
If you can buy Rank 0 in a skill at 2 in one and rank 0 in the other at 20, whats the difference in scope?
As for Fit I was wrong its even worse that I had first said because it takes 200 xp, so that +5 is only 0.25% of the cost paid for by the Module.
-
*snip*
What I was suggesting was cleaning the paths up and reducing the point values across the board, not just taking what was there and dividing by 10
*snip*
I took the two highlighted bits together to mean scoping down the modules. So what exactly did you mean? ???
-
The main point I was making was that I have had little or no luck getting players to play this addition because of the character creation system.
I had no problems getting player to play 2nd and only slightly more problems then 2nd getting them to play 3rd, but out of the 18 players I have tried to get into AToW only 3 ever finished creating characters and they stopped wanting to play when one got killed during mech combat and would have had to make a new character.
For the rest I either switched to 2nd edition (which they loved) or to another game (Shadowrun/L5R)
And when asked why they did not want to play, everyone pointed to the character creation system as the reason.
Also, just to be clear they used the spreadsheet and that did not improve their experience.
If players can't get thru character creation then it doesn't matter if the rest of the game its the best system ever made mechanically, the system needs work.
-
I took the two highlighted bits together to mean scoping down the modules. So what exactly did you mean? ???
What I posted above ex.(Backwoods Module)
OK some of this I will chalk-up to me not being clear.
What I was suggesting was cleaning the paths up and reducing the point values across the board, not just taking what was there and dividing by 10
ex.
Random Path: not named or some thing
Module cost: 30 XP
Prerequisites: what ever
Fixed XPs: 30
[Attributes] STR (+10), BOD (+10), RFL (+7), INT (-2 XP), CHA (–5 XP);
[Traits] [Traits] Equipped (–5 XP), Fit (+10 XP), Illiterate (–7 XP), Toughness (+7 XP),Wealth (–7 XP);
[Skill] Language/Affiliation (+1 XP), Martial Arts (+1 XP), Melee Weapons (+1 XP), Navigation/Ground (+1 XP), Perception (+1), Running (+1 XP),
Survival/Any (+1 XP), Tracking/Wilds (+1 XP)
Flexible XPs: +4 XP each to any two Attributes or Traits
Also changing the "EXPERIENCE POINT (XP) COSTS TABLE" to
Level/Score Trait/ Attribute Level Standard
0 N/A 2
1 10 3
2 20 5
3 30 8
4 40 12
5 50 17
6 60 23
7 70 30
8 80 38
9 90 47
10 100 57
11+ (Level x 10) N/A
-
So how is that "not just" dividing everything by 10? And I get 34 points for the module vice 30... I suspect rounding bit you.
As far as character creation, I do all the heavy lifting for my players. They tell me generally what they want, I work up a draft, and we tweak from there. It doesn't take that long, and I actually enjoy the process.
-
So how is that "not just" dividing everything by 10? And I get 34 points for the module vice 30... I suspect rounding bit you.
As far as character creation, I do all the heavy lifting for my players. They tell me generally what they want, I work up a draft, and we tweak from there. It doesn't take that long, and I actually enjoy the process.
The point is that your are only having to play with 500 XP not 5000 XP.
You get rid of Skills/Traits that have no reason to exist other then "we had 5 points laying around of the 150 so we put +5 to Fit because Clanners are fit right"
Don't get me wrong all the other editions had issues also.
1st: Laser focus on combat types with no non-combat types, Very little room to design PC that where different from one another
2nd: Powergamers becoming gods (By the way this can be handled with limited house rules)
3rd: Random rolls crippling or destroying PC concepts, Overly high advancement curves, Overblown damage system, Incompatible with board game.
As for doing character creation for my players.
I feel that (in most RPGs) that character creation is the best part of the game for players.
Its where they get to create the PC that the want to play and decide the personality of the PC.
IMO if you make it for them then you are cheating player out of the experience and creating your NPC interpretation of what the player tells you.
P.S. Did the math again and still got 30 XP so I'm not sure how you got 34 XP?
-
Absolutely agreed on 3rd edition's problems (from both you and Maelwys). I didn't think 2nd edition was that bad, but it had the cookie cutter problem in spades (Intuition was ALL). 1st was... well, a first edition. It had its problems, but I remember it fondly, as that was the edition under which I played my longest playing character (most of the way through college... man, I miss those days!).
-
Absolutely agreed on 3rd edition's problems (from both you and Maelwys). I didn't think 2nd edition was that bad, but it had the cookie cutter problem in spades (Intuition was ALL). 1st was... well, a first edition. It had its problems, but I remember it fondly, as that was the edition under which I played my longest playing character (most of the way through college... man, I miss those days!).
I personal feel that 2nd was the best Edition of the game.
The advancement problem can easily be fixed by changing XP awards and forcing the use of both AP and XP for advancement.
And to the issues with overpowered characters at character creation all you have to due is limit skill advancement to LRN during character creation.
This forces players to spend point there.
As for 3rd, I never had the same issues with 3rd that others seem to have had.
1. I never had issues with the random tables as even by the rules you could spend edge to reroll, I added one free reroll to every path which resulted in player never being to upset with the result, also had players who liked the idea of playing a Clanner that washed-out because it added flavor to them.
2. Really my only major issues with the game was the split of the gunnery skill and the high cost of advancement.
if these issues where fix it would have been a great game.
That's where I think IMHO 4th over-corrected and in the end made the character creation system less flavorful and more time consuming.
-
2nd edition drove everyone to put their first priority into stats (INT especially, LRN not too far behind). With 6s in the relevant attributes, you really only needed 3 levels (given by the basic skill packages) to be a 3 gunner or pilot. The main issue (I thought) was the lack of spare points to round out a character.
Without free re-rolls, 3rd edition character creation felt a lot like Traveller to me: "Oh look, dead again... Time to start over..." ::)
-
2nd edition drove everyone to put their first priority into stats (INT especially, LRN not too far behind). With 6s in the relevant attributes, you really only needed 3 levels (given by the basic skill packages) to be a 3 gunner or pilot. The main issue (I thought) was the lack of spare points to round out a character.
Never understood why this was an issues, if a player wants to play a character that is not well-rounded that's there choice and they have to live with it.
Why is it the RPGs responsibility to keep them from doing it?
Without free re-rolls, 3rd edition character creation felt a lot like Traveller to me: "Oh look, dead again... Time to start over..." ::)
I agree, but it only took adding the free re-roll to fix that so I have never understood everyone acts like the random system was the 6th Level of hell ???
-
Starting over was time consuming, and disappointing if you had started to get invested in the character.
2nd edition's main problem was that stats were MUCH harder to raise than skills. You could very easily tell yourself that you'd pick up more skills later. Not so much stats...
-
Maybe it is because I can have a decent point buy character in ten minutes and a module in about 30 minutes I've never really understood what the problem is for character creation. Without spreadsheets on those times too.
Dividing by 10 just shifts things but does present an interesting thought for my house rules where I have specifically addressed the more troublesome aspects of Fast/Slow Learner.
Since AToW is a zero sum affair for the modules, at least until you start repeating them, it is actually really easy to come up with your own. Heck for a full conversion AU I've been working on for ages I've managed to get up to stage 3 with a couple stage 4 modules tossed in as I got inspired.
-
Maybe it is because I can have a decent point buy character in ten minutes and a module in about 30 minutes I've never really understood what the problem is for character creation. Without spreadsheets on those times too.
Dividing by 10 just shifts things but does present an interesting thought for my house rules where I have specifically addressed the more troublesome aspects of Fast/Slow Learner.
Since AToW is a zero sum affair for the modules, at least until you start repeating them, it is actually really easy to come up with your own. Heck for a full conversion AU I've been working on for ages I've managed to get up to stage 3 with a couple stage 4 modules tossed in as I got inspired.
Funny thing is that using the point buy system makes the large numbers of the character creation system even less necessary.
Would love to see you work on the module, it may present a springboard for me to add a little flavor into my game if I get around to run on.
Currently running a shadowrun 5th edition campaign set in 2050.
Are you using existing 3rd edition paths or crating your own?
-
The modules I've been making are for AToW not 3rd just to be clear and are pretty specific to my full conversion AU.
They are making full use of my house rules and are for a full conversion AU. That means no familiar factions, no familiar characters, and some slightly different premises.
I won't promise that they are very good at making sure a character is properly rounded or adding flavor but I did also attach some random event tables.
I'll toss a link to it down in my thread in Fan Rules for AToW stuff.
-
The main point I was making was that I have had little or no luck getting players to play this addition because of the character creation system.
I would agree the character creation is complex and unclear and not for everyone. It could be improved...I'm just not certain your ideas would be an improvement.
There are ore generated characters and the simpler, faster point based generation system.
-
I would not mind if they reprinted the character creation section as a small pdf, stream lined and better layout. Would not even have to reprint all the skills and traits, just reference the pages in AToW. That and all the players would not be waiting on my book.
That said, I don't mind it. After a couple characters i got used to it.
-
That's a really good idea... I may take a whack at it...
-
Don't get me started on Slow and Fast Learner.
If I had a choice these would be the first things to go.
I have yet in any of the multiple 3rd and AToW games I have played in to find a Clanner who doesn't buy off Slow learner or a Innersphere player who doesn't buy Fast Learner. These to me over complicate the system for no purpose.
Fast Learner might need a boost to make it worth while. And we already boosted it once. Maybe drop the cost.
You need a huge amount of sessions just to *break even* on the initial investment. At which point you're welcome to the benefits. Every other player has been getting benefits on their Traits the whole time you were still working just to get to break even.
Buying off Slow Learner? Well, like you said, not the job of the RPG to prevent people from doing so.
I would not mind if they reprinted the character creation section as a small pdf, stream lined and better layout. Would not even have to reprint all the skills and traits, just reference the pages in AToW. That and all the players would not be waiting on my book.
I'll see if that can be looked at.
-
Ahh. You guys are going to make me blush.
In all seriousness, thanks.
-
OK some of this I will chalk-up to me not being clear.
What I was suggesting was cleaning the paths up and reducing the point values across the board, not just taking what was there and dividing by 10
I got this part, I just haven't crunched the numbers to see what happens. Its interesting, but I presume that CGL didn't do it on this scale for some reason (presumably). I don't know if it would be better or not.
-
It's based on the rewards we want you to give individual players per session. We wanted that simple and easy, and scaled up from there.
-
Here's a quick (2 page) outline I whipped up in Word... opinions?
-
I got this part, I just haven't crunched the numbers to see what happens. Its interesting, but I presume that CGL didn't do it on this scale for some reason (presumably). I don't know if it would be better or not.
I was looking at the fact that big number (adding or multiplication) tend to scare players away, and was looking for the easiest way to mod the system to keep the general idea and reduce the size of the numbers to keep players from dismissing it before they even try the system.
I will say that most of the players I have tried to introduce to AToW looked at the 5,000 XP and bocked almost immediately at the system.
So they when in with a bias from the start. As I have said before the mechanics of the game itself work well it just getting to them from the character creation side.
It's based on the rewards we want you to give individual players per session. We wanted that simple and easy, and scaled up from there.
Not sure I follow how 5,000 XP is simple or easier then 500 XP?
But that could be just me ???
Fast Learner might need a boost to make it worth while. And we already boosted it once. Maybe drop the cost.
You need a huge amount of sessions just to *break even* on the initial investment. At which point you're welcome to the benefits. Every other player has been getting benefits on their Traits the whole time you were still working just to get to break even.
Buying off Slow Learner? Well, like you said, not the job of the RPG to prevent people from doing so.
I'll see if that can be looked at.
I was more getting to the point that if a Trait becomes the have to have or have to buy-off (Slow Learner for Clanners) then is it really needed.
I would just get rid of it and up the cost of the Clan Modules its in by 300 XP or what ever you change it to.
As for the part of my post that has got the lest attention,
The generic nature of the Tour of Duties and Military Academy Modules. Where volume of numbers and the back and forth of Character creation has been a problem for both me and my player. The generic nature is even more of a problem for me. The funny thing is it was done better (not great) within AToW already with the Covert ops. training.
For all the good changes made from 3rd to AToW, the dumbing down of these Modules was not one of them.
Now I have heard the book space and power-creep argument and don't see them as an issues.
1. Book Space: This one can be handled with a PDF even one that cost. I can tell you that I would buy a PDF that adds this missing Flavor to the game and I think others would to.
2. Power-creep: Again not an issues with AToW as all the paths in any given Life stage seem to have the same point values. So you would be adding flavor and distinctive skill sets to the character and not making him/her more powerful then the rest. Even a PDF that just takes the existing 3rd edition paths and converts them to AToW Modules would easily fix this issues for me at least.
-
I agree power creep wouldn't be a problem, but page count is not so easily dismissed. New products are hard to do, no matter how easy they look at first glance.
-
I got this part, I just haven't crunched the numbers to see what happens. Its interesting, but I presume that CGL didn't do it on this scale for some reason (presumably). I don't know if it would be better or not.
I don't see that it would do anything except remove granularity. The rebate for the study fields would also be affected.
-
Here's a quick (2 page) outline I whipped up in Word... opinions?
I am of the opinion that, that would have taken me a day. It looks good, biggest thing that jumped out at me was some of the text were not lined up, no big. Looking forward to more.
-
I don't see that it would do anything except remove granularity. The rebate for the study fields would also be affected.
I never understood the reason for the rebate. Why not just reduce the cost of those fields?
-
What they did was apply a general procedure to all fields vice fiddling with each one individually. It seems more elegant to me this way.
And thanks for the feedback... I'll try pasting it into Excel to line things up a little more cleanly.
-
I never understood the reason for the rebate. Why not just reduce the cost of those fields?
No idea.
I could posit certain advantages...the rebate going into a rebate pool that can be spent only after character generation, or ensuring that various tricks aren't used such as ensuring a field can't be bought, or ensuring a degree of flexibility in that Clan training has different rebates
But the way the rules read, it is a dimple cost reduction and may as well be written as such.
Unless I'm missing something, only a rules lawyer of a GM might prevent me buying a field package when I have enough XP for it with the rebate, but just fall short without it.
-
Yeah I get that. It is just, to me, it would have reduced some of the math if TPTB had just said " you get this field of six skills, each at 30xp for 144xp" as opposed to "count up the skills, multiple by 30, and get back 6 for each skill".
-
No idea.
I could posit certain advantages...the rebate going into a rebate pool that can be spent only after character generation, or ensuring that various tricks aren't used such as ensuring a field can't be bought, or ensuring a degree of flexibility in that Clan training has different rebates
But the way the rules read, it is a dimple cost reduction and may as well be written as such.
Unless I'm missing something, only a rules lawyer of a GM might prevent me buying a field package when I have enough XP for it with the rebate, but just fall short without it.
Well the truth is that rebated packs have existed since 2nd edition, can't remember if they where in 1st will have to look into that.
I will say that in 2nd they gave you the rebated cost up front and you did not have to do the math yourself.
-
Yeah I get that. It is just, to me, it would have reduced some of the math if TPTB had just said " you get this field of six skills, each at 30xp for 144xp" as opposed to "count up the skills, multiple by 30, and get back 6 for each skill".
Like in 2nd ;D
-
Like in 2nd ;D
Dear lord. I had forgot that, but in my defense, it has been something like 20 years since I looked at it.
-
I agree power creep wouldn't be a problem, but page count is not so easily dismissed. New products are hard to do, no matter how easy they look at first glance.
I don't really see the issues here.
We have the 3rd edition paths to work from so most of the work is done, it's just down to smoothing them out and working up a point cost.
The only reasons I have not done it myself are:
1. Not sure about the point to point scale between 3rd and 4th
2. Have been busy with college for the last 4 years (just graduated)
3. My players tend not to like GM made Paths/Module because, if the company comes out with their own they can wind-up being under or overpowered. (happened a lot with Star Wars FFG) So they tend to like official rule
4. And recently wanted to see if CGL was going to do anything to change the current character creation rule.
edit: forgot two
5. Would not be able to post them due to legal reason, as even if they where good It may keep CGL from doing it to avoid issues.
6. If CGL ever wanted to due it I would feel like I was doing their job for them.
-
One of my bigger efforts was going through and re-working the fields so that they are all 5 skill fields for my house rules.
Sure you might need another field or two to pull off your character concept but it makes it super easy to figure out rebates.
-
Different sized skill fields are exactly why they went the way they did. 2nd edition had many fewer options, so it made more sense to do them individually.
And here's the XL version of the outline. It looks like it's going to print with a much smaller font for some reason, but it looks ok on screen.
-
It's based on the rewards we want you to give individual players per session. We wanted that simple and easy, and scaled up from there.
Ah, there we go. There was the hook that was wriggling in the back of my mind.
Not sure I follow how 5,000 XP is simple or easier then 500 XP?
But that could be just me ???
Its not that 5000 XP is easier to work with than 500, its the scale of the matter. In ATOW, 1 XP is worth 1/100th of an attribute, where as in your system, 1 XP is worth 1/10th of an attribute. Quite a difference. Now, that might not necessarily be a deal breaker for you, but that's where the scale of the system came from and the 5000.
-
Put that way, it makes even more sense. Attributes should be hard to raise, since they impact a wide range of skills.
-
Its not that 5000 XP is easier to work with than 500, its the scale of the matter. In ATOW, 1 XP is worth 1/100th of an attribute, where as in your system, 1 XP is worth 1/10th of an attribute. Quite a difference. Now, that might not necessarily be a deal breaker for you, but that's where the scale of the system came from and the 5000.
So instead of give 10 or 20 XP as the rules suggest you give 1 or 2.
Still not seeing the issue?
And just to be clearer, the 1/10 idea was just a suggestion so that the system did not have to be totally overhauled not a demand or requirement by me.
It was a brain storm by me and some of my players as to a system change that would get them to try playing the game again.
If you, CGl, or anyone else came up with a better one that work I would not stick my nose up at it because it was that my idea. :thumbsup:
-
So instead of give 10 or 20 XP as the rules suggest you give 1 or 2.
It doesn't suggest 10-20. It suggests 1 or 2 already.
See the table on p. 332. Everything radiates outward from that. That table and the one on page 85 is how this all got started in early 2009.
I agree that rebates were a mistake. If I get a shot at an overhaul, they'd disappear. You'd just have a value per field that has the rebate factored in already.
We also agree that Points Based would be presented as the baseline chargen, while modules become optional.
-
It doesn't suggest 10-20. It suggests 1 or 2 already.
See the table on p. 332. Everything radiates outward from that. That table and the one on page 85 is how this all got started in early 2009.
I agree that rebates were a mistake. If I get a shot at an overhaul, they'd disappear. You'd just have a value per field that has the rebate factored in already.
We also agree that Points Based would be presented as the baseline chargen, while modules become optional.
Was going off the statment on p.330
"In most cases, the total XP earned by a player will not be much higher than 10XP for a normal session without exceptional events. During particularly good sessions, it may
approach 20XP."
-
I know I am in the minority, but I always liked the modules. They helped me develop my characters background.
They also help with reasons for having other skills.
-
Was going off the statment on p.330
"In most cases, the total XP earned by a player will not be much higher than 10XP for a normal session without exceptional events. During particularly good sessions, it may
approach 20XP."
Yes. Because of an accumulation of 1-2 point items.
-
I was more getting to the point that if a Trait becomes the have to have or have to buy-off (Slow Learner for Clanners) then is it really needed.
I would just get rid of it and up the cost of the Clan Modules its in by 300 XP or what ever you change it to.
Must have: most people think that of Fast learner, but only because they don't do the math. They realize: at some point, it becomes free XP, but don't see that "at some point" might be 3-4 years of gameplay if you have 1 session per month.
Must sell: same thing really. Plus it reinforces the 'burn bright, but burn up' approach. You likely shouldn't be alive anymore by the time the break even point of Slow Learner kicks in and you start losing XP. Meanwhile, it gives you a boost up front.
-
Must have: most people think that of Fast learner, but only because they don't do the math. They realize: at some point, it becomes free XP, but don't see that "at some point" might be 3-4 years of gameplay if you have 1 session per month.
Must sell: same thing really. Plus it reinforces the 'burn bright, but burn up' approach. You likely shouldn't be alive anymore by the time the break even point of Slow Learner kicks in and you start losing XP. Meanwhile, it gives you a boost up front.
While this is true if you use only the Corebook to make your characters, once you add in the Random Life Event Roll from the AToW, which every game I played in used, (Both mine and other GMs) most Clanners and Mechwarrior get a +1 or +2 to the roll for an average of 7 to 10 on the roll (neutral to positive results). This tends to disappear quickly.
Yes. Because of an accumulation of 1-2 point items.
This aside, why does character creation have to be exactly the same as in game advancement?
you could lower it only during character creation and raise it back up for the game, it's been done in other game to good effect.
Again not saying that this is the only way it could work, it was just a thought to keep new players from (fairly or unfairly) dismissing the game do to the large numbers.
As the point of this thread was original to talk about things that may need to be changed or at least streamline in the game here are my thoughts,
IMHO
1. Some Life Modules need to be less generic (Tour of Duty, Military Academy, Etc) to bring back the flavor lost from 2nd and 3rd.
2. Character creation point system needs to be toned down. There are way to many places where a minor math error can throw-off the calculations either against or in favor of the PC. And even thou its simple adding and subtract with as small amount of multiplication and division. the amount of it can quickly become a turn-off to player.
3. As has been said, the Skill Fields need a set cost.
4. Missing information about Battlearmor needs to be added, pack charges, effects on attributes, AToW level movement modifiers, etc.
5. Some Battletech Board game Modifier Charts with Skill used and Mods in AToW terms for quick reference during Mech combat (Lets not kid ourselves Mechwarriors are what most players are going to be 8))
And I'm sure there are other just can't think of them right now.
-
Points 4 and 5 are already largely covered by AToW but I'll admit it is kind of hard to find them in a quick manner.
Point 3 likewise is already technically true in AToW module build, the costs are fixed, but again to be fair because it isn't clear or easy to work out rebates is a large reason why I did go through and re-work the fields to be universally 5 skills each for my house rules.
2 is largely going to be subjective but again something I actually wouldn't argue against too much.
1 can be handled easily enough with either supplemental material or house rules.
-
1 doesn't even need house rules... the Flex built into all those modules easily covers customization.
For 2 and 3, I still don't see the issue with arithmetic. Math is NOT scary. If they can do the turn to turn math for a 'mech in TW (or even Alpha Strike), they can do the math for AToW.
Monbvol is right about 4 and 5.
-
As the point of this thread was original to talk about things that may need to be changed or at least streamline in the game here are my thoughts,
IMHO
…
4. Missing information about Battlearmor needs to be added, pack charges, effects on attributes, AToW level movement modifiers, etc.
...
I do not think AToW is missing rules for battle armor. Although, the rules could be made more obvious. It is possible to deduce the AToW movement modifiers and damage as I demonstrate in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9n6xNEAboA&list=PLW4v4K6PB7qIWAumfYAqdfxOlk4OgDOTD&index=9&t=29s
There is also no reason for battle armor to effect attributes. The attributes should be the same, but the modifiers to--say--a strength attribute check when in battle armor should make the roll easier as the GM decides.
I wrote and posted the TW to AToW conversion rules later in the thread, but I feel that they should be here. So, I'm posting them in this post below as well.
Total Warfare to AToW Conversation Rules for Battle Armor
To convert a suit of battle armor’s armor value from TW to AToW, first count the number of tactical armor points on the battle armor’s TW sheet and then consult the BATTLE ARMOR BAR TABLE on page 187 of AToW. The number of tactical armor points of the battle armor TW sheet corresponds to the “Tactical Armor” column of the BATTLE ARMOR BAR TABLE, which then determines the AToW values for that battle armor. This comes from page 186 of AToW: “This armor [battle armor] has special effects in standard play…based on the armor’s starting number of tactical armor points.”
To convert a suit of battle armor’s speed from TW to AToW, understand that 1 TW MP = 15 meters of AToW speed. So, multiply the amount of ground MPs on a battle armor’s TW sheet by 15 to yield that battle armor’s AToW speed in meters per turn.
This is the case because each TW turn lasts 10 seconds, each TW hex represents 30 meters, and each AToW turn lasts for 5 seconds. Consequently, we get a very simple mathematical formula to solve for AToW speed, which I set equal to X:
[(30 meters) / (10seconds)] = [(X meters)/ (5 seconds)]
It is elementary to deduce that X=15. Thus, 1 TW MP = 15 meters of AToW speed because of math. In AToW, the GM can convert meters to MPs as they see fit (from, page 167 of AToW) to more clearly define how many TW MPs equate to how many AToW MPs.
-
Well... lifting capacity is directly related to STR, and Cargo Lifters directly affect that, so... It's kind of hard to represent that via modifiers.
-
Well... lifting capacity is directly related to STR, and Cargo Lifters directly affect that, so... It's kind of hard to represent that via modifiers.
I know STR determines a PC's encumbrance level, but I didn't see that limiting how much a PC can lift. For instance, a max deadlift for one repetition will be way more than how much you can carry on your back without being encumbered. So, how I would run it is like this:
Let's say you can deadlift 300lb.s if you pass a STR check with a -3 difficulty modifier. However, if you are in battle armor or power armor, you can now deadlift 300lb.s with a +1 difficultly modifier. Those modifiers are completely arbitrary and based on GM discretion.
-
I suppose it could work that way, but be careful about posting house rules outside of the "Fan Designs and Rules" Forum.
-
Total Warfare to AToW Conversation Rules for Battle Armor
To convert a suit of battle armor’s armor value from TW to AToW, first count the number of tactical armor points on the battle armor’s TW sheet and then consult the BATTLE ARMOR BAR TABLE on page 187 of AToW. The number of tactical armor points of the battle armor TW sheet corresponds to the “Tactical Armor” column of the BATTLE ARMOR BAR TABLE, which then determines the AToW values for that battle armor. This comes from page 186 of AToW: “This armor [battle armor] has special effects in standard play…based on the armor’s starting number of tactical armor points.”
To convert a suit of battle armor’s speed from TW to AToW, understand that 1 TW MP = 15 meters of AToW speed. So, multiply the amount of ground MPs on a battle armor’s TW sheet by 15 to yield that battle armor’s AToW speed in meters per turn.
This is the case because each TW turn lasts 10 seconds, each TW hex represents 30 meters, and each AToW turn lasts for 5 seconds. Consequently, we get a very simple mathematical formula to solve for AToW speed, which I set equal to X:
[(30 meters) / (10seconds)] = [(X meters)/ (5 seconds)]
It is elementary to deduce that X=15. Thus, 1 TW MP = 15 meters of AToW speed because of math. In AToW, the GM can convert meters to MPs as they see fit (from, page 167 of AToW) to more clearly define how many TW MPs equate to how many AToW MPs.
-
I suppose it could work that way, but be careful about posting house rules outside of the "Fan Designs and Rules" Forum.
I meant for those to be a GM implementation of the action difficulty table in the same way that the example on page 41 implements said table: "Franz is also wearing camouflage appropriate for the environment, for another +1 roll modifier..."
So, my own example about making a STR check in power armor could analogously read, "The PC who normally gets a -3 on his STR check to deadlift 300lb.s is wearing power armor appropriate for deadlifting and so receives a +3 roll modifier for a net roll modifier of +0."
-
That'll probably keep you clear of mod wrath...
-
That'll probably keep you clear of mod wrath...
Thanks for looking out for me!
-
I accidently quoted myself for no reason and deleted it by replacing it with this.
-
No problem... it's the least I can do for someone who made a video about using my spreadsheet! :thumbsup:
-
The point of my post is to discuss what others think the game needs or if things should be changed or streamlined.
Well I should have know all people can do on this site is attack others ideas.
If everyone think the game is great and needs no changes that fine.
Since I can't get anyone to play it here I'll just keep using 2nd.
Total Warfare to AToW Conversation Rules for Battle Armor
To convert a suit of battle armor’s armor value from TW to AToW, first count the number of tactical armor points on the battle armor’s TW sheet and then consult the BATTLE ARMOR BAR TABLE on page 187 of AToW. The number of tactical armor points of the battle armor TW sheet corresponds to the “Tactical Armor” column of the BATTLE ARMOR BAR TABLE, which then determines the AToW values for that battle armor. This comes from page 186 of AToW: “This armor [battle armor] has special effects in standard play…based on the armor’s starting number of tactical armor points.”
To convert a suit of battle armor’s speed from TW to AToW, understand that 1 TW MP = 15 meters of AToW speed. So, multiply the amount of ground MPs on a battle armor’s TW sheet by 15 to yield that battle armor’s AToW speed in meters per turn.
This is the case because each TW turn lasts 10 seconds, each TW hex represents 30 meters, and each AToW turn lasts for 5 seconds. Consequently, we get a very simple mathematical formula to solve for AToW speed, which I set equal to X:
[(30 meters) / (10seconds)] = [(X meters)/ (5 seconds)]
It is elementary to deduce that X=15. Thus, 1 TW MP = 15 meters of AToW speed because of math. In AToW, the GM can convert meters to MPs as they see fit (from, page 167 of AToW) to more clearly define how many TW MPs equate to how many AToW MPs.
I did not need the rules for Armor I know them.
As for the movement is this conversion office or assumed.
The 2nd and 3rd editions of the game pre AToW had attribute modifiers so why not here?
-
Attacking others ideas is certainly not the only thing we do on this board. I just happen to think AToW is pretty good (broadly) as is, and want to make sure that point of view is represented here.
-
I did not need the rules for Armor I know them.
As for the movement is this conversion office or assumed.
The 2nd and 3rd editions of the game pre AToW had attribute modifiers so why not here?
The movement in this conversion is neither office nor assumed. It is mathematically and logically entailed from the rules as written, and I--as a simple fan--deduced that entailment.
Also, I'm sorry you were feeling attacked. You brought up very good points, and you are correct that the movement rules need to be put in explicitly. Not everyone is going to be able to see what I saw.
-
I wouldn't call anything said in this thread an attack. At most a disagreement or differing of opinion.
And Battlearmor modifiers to attributes depend largely on the equipment installed and the tables for that are at page 216 and 404 of the pdf.
Personally I don't mind that they only effect Strength now as improving any other attribute didn't really make much sense.
-
I wouldn't call anything said in this thread an attack. At most a disagreement or differing of opinion.
And Battlearmor modifiers to attributes depend largely on the equipment installed and the tables for that are at page 216 and 404 of the pdf.
Personally I don't mind that they only effect Strength now as improving any other attribute didn't really make much sense.
Dang, you are right. There is a BATTLE ARMOR STRENGTH AND MELEE MODIFIERS TABLE on page 216.
-
The movement in this conversion is neither office nor assumed. It is mathematically and logically entailed from the rules as written, and I--as a simple fan--deduced that entailment.
Also, I'm sorry you were feeling attacked. You brought up very good points, and you are correct that the movement rules need to be put in explicitly. Not everyone is going to be able to see what I saw.
Sorry if you took that as directed at you, it was not intended it was more of a buildup brought on by the fact that know one seemed to get the intent of the thread.
Your information was informative.
As I have said multiple times the reason for this thread was to bring up issues with the game on a forum that the writes or at least someone who can bring it to the writes are at so maybe they can be addressed. If you think there is nothing wrong with the game then fine. Again I think the game as a whole is fine, to me it just has some issues when it comes to character creation that intimidating new player and have a feel of being to generic at the same time, and some non-intuitive rules that once explained are easy to use.
I look at it as, if you don't agree with my opinion fine that's your choice but don't try to convince me that I'm wrong.
-
Dang, you are right. There is a BATTLE ARMOR STRENGTH AND MELEE MODIFIERS TABLE on page 216.
I see the Melee mod but not the STR?
-
*snip*
I look at it as, if you don't agree with my opinion fine that's your choice but don't try to convince me that I'm wrong.
I'm not trying to convince you, just speak to the same audience you're aiming at...
-
The STR modifier is the last column on the table. Which if you don't see means you have an older printing.
-
A second issue is timing. 3rd Edition was released over such a period of time that the Life Paths were spread out over just as many years. Early Field Manuals have RPG rules for 2nd Edition, while after 3rd was released, the Field Manuals had rules for 3rd Edition, and those factions with early Field Manuals languished with 2nd Edition rules for a long time. The same would've happened with ATOW if they had tried to make specialized Life Paths for each faction. It took something like 10 years for all the Handbooks to come out. Imagine telling Kuritan players that they won't get their Kurita-specific lifepaths until the Kuritan Handbook came out...
You do realize that FM:DC was one of those books that supported 2nd Ed RPG and that HB:HK didn't come out until after AToW came out, so that there was no DC source book during the 3rd Ed RPG run, right?
Sure, you can shove faction specific life Paths into the main book to avoid this timing problem, but now you're looking at having dozens of extra Life Paths, and that makes the book so much bigger. Imagine having to have the space for a House Specific Academy (maybe 2 if you want to have a "Good" Academy and a "Bad" Academy. Oh, and their own ToD as well. And maybe their own Organized Crime Modules. And then add in the Periphery factions. And the Clans. 3rd Edition got to the point where there was a book almost entirely dedicated to Life Paths alone.
Well first thing is that in that Life Path you don't go overboard with how many you offer. It's also a good idea, no matter how tempting, not to offer paths that no player should have access to, like being a Death Commando or member of the Nekakami, and yes those where options for your character in 3rd Ed RPG
-
You do realize that FM:DC was one of those books that supported 2nd Ed RPG and that HB:HK didn't come out until after AToW came out, so that there was no DC source book during the 3rd Ed RPG run, right?
Sure. That was the one I was talking about. Funny story about it even. I went to Gencon one year and asked the person at the FASA booth if they were going to do anything, since the older FMs had 2nd edition stats, while the newer ones would presumably have third edition stats. They said they thought maybe they could put the third edition stats online :)
But that just proves my point (though to be fair, the 3rd Edition RPG stats for the DC Academies were published in the Classic BT Compendium). Timing CAN be an issue if you want more faction-specific Life Paths. If you don't want to clutter up the main book, then you have to find a place and a time for them in the product line. Either a faction-specific book, or a Life-Path specific book. PDF can help with this, but its more effort than saying "Here's a generic Academy Life Module, use the affiliation skills and the flex points to make it your own."
Well first thing is that in that Life Path you don't go overboard with how many you offer. It's also a good idea, no matter how tempting, not to offer paths that no player should have access to, like being a Death Commando or member of the Nekakami, and yes those where options for your character in 3rd Ed RPG
Sure, but you still have to add some. I mean, the Covert Ops Life Module shows that it can be done (and I'm not sure why they did it that way, but left others generic), but its still a bit of work. And you have to make judgements. How many Academies do you do for a faction? What happens if that faction loses access to the Academy that you did (like the DC losing access to the Dieron Gymnasium IIRC)? Do you suddenly have to put out a new Module? And you have to make a decision. The MoC and the Marians get their own Academy. What about Fitvelt?
And you have to do things like ToD, etc etc.
I'm not saying these things are impossible to do. Its not impossible to do faction-specific Modules for a variety of things. After all, 3rd Edition did it for the most part. But its effort. You have to find when and where you're going to release them, and you have to make the additional effort of deciding what is worth including, and what isn't.
And these are potential reasons for why ATOW (for the most part) went with the generic decisions that it did.
-
The Covert Ops module only provides one "customization" per faction, and takes up nearly a full page of text. I don't think they'd have made anyone happy with a single Academy per faction (not to mention Enlistments, or Family Training), and it would have thrown off the formatting of the stage 3 schools, which currently neatly fit on two pages. Tour of Duty has the Stage 4 example embedded in it, and may have lost the column inches necessary for faction customization to that.
-
For 3rd they placed DCM,FWLM, etc. into the Classic Battletech Companion.
But never produced schools for the missing 2nd edition school :(.
Anyway it can be done, and if done now with no new system in the works it could be done without the split that happened between 2nd and 3rd.
And as I said it could be done as PDF only or PDF/POD.
-
For 3rd they placed DCM,FWLM, etc. into the Classic Battletech Companion.
But never produced schools for the missing 2nd edition school :(.
Anyway it can be done, and if done now with no new system in the works it could be done without the split that happened between 2nd and 3rd.
And as I said it could be done as PDF only or PDF/POD.
Check news about the new RPG edition, MechWarrior: Destiny.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=66175.new;topicseen#new
-
I know a lot of people complain about the Character Generation (and some points I agree), but why can't they just use the Optional Point Buy System?
-
I know a lot of people complain about the Character Generation (and some points I agree), but why can't they just use the Optional Point Buy System?
Modern RPG is trending toward simplification and rule lite system. For many Classic BT players it may not matter much, but if CGL want to capture a wider RPG market, even the point buy option is still too clunky by modern standard. D&D, Pathfinder, Shadowrun all follows the mainstream trend.
-
Modern RPG is trending toward simplification and rule lite system. For many Classic BT players it may not matter much, but if CGL want to capture a wider RPG market, even the point buy option is still too clunky by modern standard. D&D, Pathfinder, Shadowrun all follows the mainstream trend.
As an example...
I like detailed characters. I like having traits and skills that define what a character is, and what he knows or is capable of.
But I also dislike overlapping skills, or minor differences....
Negotiation being wordplay, intimidation being physical is a big difference, but would we need separate skills for Oration and Acting?
By and large, once I know what the character can do, I want rules that are simple.
I don't need to account for every possible modifier in an RPG game the way I need in a board game. In the latter, I need to account for every tree, every hex, every piece of terrain and movement, ECM and so on because TT tactics and fairness dictate that. If I move into a treed hex I should get the benefits of doing so. But in an RPG, I don't need the exact modifier...I just need to know if the shot is easy, difficult or near impossible. Then I need one role to decide if the actions succeeds
As an example - look at the combining Actions example in the ATOW companion. To land a ship it lists the use of six skills. Six skills for one action. That is over complicating for no benefit - I should just need to roll once for that one action, and if there is a failure, then the margin of failure should help determine the seriousness of failure.
One roll - not six. That CGL saw the need to include this as an example is, to my mind, crazy. It should, need one - OK, two for the Acting aspect but no more.
-
Modern RPG is trending toward simplification and rule lite system. For many Classic BT players it may not matter much, but if CGL want to capture a wider RPG market, even the point buy option is still too clunky by modern standard. D&D, Pathfinder, Shadowrun all follows the mainstream trend.
Which doesn't please everyone. I prefer D&D 3.5, Pathfinder 1.0, and SR 3rd edition...
-
I will agree dropships should need at most two skills to actually fly. One of which can be dispensed of if it is a sphereoid.
What I actually find most lacking are proper frameworks upon which to build a neofuedalistic setting. Even the stuff in the companion is a bit lacking.
-
My hope is that MechWarrior: Destiny fixes what was bad about AToW and leaves the rest allow.
AToW was a good system game mechanics wise its character creation engine was its only issues.
I hope they don't pull a Shadowrun 6th edition and gut the system removing all logic and reason for the sake of "Simplifying".
-
Or they revamp MW2 with better character creation rules and integration of SPAs and SCAs to make it full compatible with CO and other current rules.
-
Itll be the Cue system adapted to BT.
-
Itll be the Cue system adapted to BT.
Wow that was quick.
That one statement ended any interest I had in the new RPG.
-
Wow that was quick.
That one statement ended any interest I had in the new RPG.
Eh, I'd say give it a chance. Phil had some really good ideas. There should be a QSR in the near future, seems worth it to at least give that a read through, no?
-
If it's free, sure. But from what I've heard of the system, AToW will remain my cup of tea...
-
Unfortunately every Cue system I've looked at has been a complete and utter turn off for me so I don't expect this to win me over.
-
Eh, I'd say give it a chance. Phil had some really good ideas. There should be a QSR in the near future, seems worth it to at least give that a read through, no?
I have Shadowrun Anarchy and its one of the worst systems I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
So I don't see this being any better.
This is like WOC saying "well you don't like D&D 4th here try it with the Dragonlance setting"
It does nothing to fix the system is a bad beer & pretzel setting.
-
That's a... very disconcerting description...
-
I mean this as constitutive criticism, I don't mean it to be to harsh.
PICK A SYSTEM AND RUN WITH IT!!
The thing that gets me is the constant changing systems from one edition to the next. The TT has had one system that has evolved and largely improved over 35 years. I had to look up the Cue system, I am not impressed, but I will check out the bata. Who knows, TPTB might have a spin on it that I like.
I will redo the AToW character creation so it is better organized.
-
Itll be the Cue system adapted to BT.
Nice! So I finally get a chance to test Cue for free, because I backed the Clan KS.
That's a sweet, sweet cherry on top that awesome pie!
-
Good luck with it... I'll read it over, but don't expect it to generate enough enthusiasm to actually play.
-
So to sum up the Cue system ( Shadowrun: Anarchy style)
1. Can't have more then 6 skills ever ( 5 active, 1 Knowledge)
2. All Spells/Cyber/Decks/Etc. are called Shadow amps and you are limited to 6
3. Cues are for lack of a better work catch phrases about your character that you are to use to tell a story (yes its a narrative game)
4. you get your skills/attributes/gear/weapons/contacts from a package related to the power level of the game chosen by the GM.
5.all characters get 2 advantages and one disadvantage.
6. Armor is bought on a +1 points bases with karma.
7 there are plot points that players can use to change the narrative for the GM/NPC/PC so if one of your teammates thinks it cool they can screw you to tell a cool story.
Overall it's a horrid game that never should have been made.
and the fact that CGL thinks it would be welcomed as the new mechwarrior RPG shows how disconnected they have become to their player base, as if shadowrun 6th edition hadn't shown that already.
-
Yikes! That sounds not even remotely appealing...
-
Yeah I hope they don't go in this direction.
-
Anyway time to get this thread back on track.
I will say it again I don't have many issues with the mechanics of AToW itself.
The core game runs fairly well, it's the front-end load of character creation and some of the overly generic rules that make it a no for most of my players.
Some Of the thing I feel would fix the system are;
1. Readjusting the character creation to a lower point total. One of the major issues I have found players have with the system is 5,000 points is just to many points to effective monitor and have fun in the process. It makes the act of character creation seem more like work then entertainment.
2. Partial Skills/Traits need to be looked at again. While the idea of partial advancements seems to add flavor to the paths, in truth it is normally ignored and the points are just reassigned during optimization. Making it a complete waste of time, and just another exercise in inventive ideas leading nowhere. A suggestion here would be to add a suggested Trait line to the modules. This would allow for major traits at or near full cost included in the cost of the package, and a spot for minor/flavor traits that the player can pick up during optimization to fill out the character. example: +25 Fit for Clan PCs, this traits total cost is 200 xp. That's just 12.5% of the cost, so unless the PC wanted that trait in the first place that just 25 wasted point he/she will reassign during optimization
3. Fast and slow learner have to go. They really do nothing for the game, they cost to much for what they do, they are hard to balance with the non-linear skill advancement, and instead of adding flavor feel more like a punishment for Clan characters that they need to get rid of.
4. Non-linear skill advancement needs to be looked at. Most of the issues with things like fast/slow learner stem from the problems of balancing advancement with a modifier to a non-liner system. Many games (including some CGL games) have done a great job of using liner advancement and maintaining balance.
5. Zero level skills are a waste of time. While the idea behind 0-level skills is ok, they are really not needed, a quick unskilled rule can fix any need for it and one line "can't use unskilled" can fix issues with higher level skills. Just seems like a wasted line and unneeded point use in skill advancement.
6. Battlearmor rules need to be cleaned up majorly. They are a mess and allover the place in the rule book. They also need some veneration from one suit to another like they had in 2nd and 3rd (their to generic)
7. Modules need more veneration and flavor, like in 2nd and 3rd where there where different school/real life packages for the different factions.
While I agree that 3rd took this too far with the ridiculous number of modules dedicated to small veneration in lifestyle. AToW went to far in the other direction by making them all overly generic.
8. Modules need to be more of a complete package. They are currently way to incomplete to be truly effective. If I am going to spend my points on something (Module) I want it to mean more then here are some starter points and ideas for a finished package. When I buy a module I have already made that life choice for my PC so it should be a complete choice and not just a taste of the choice. I understand this is to allow veneration's to the path but that should be handled by flex points and optimization not by providing incomplete paths.
9. The way Skill Fields are handled in the book is just bad. its a package all the work should be done for the characters, they should not have to do the math to figure out the package discounts, it should be done for them already.
Anyway these are the things I feel need work, would love to hear others issues and differences of opinion on the subject.
It would also be great to hear from the developers and get some insight to why choices where made and maybe even fix some of these issues (Errata/reprint/2nd ed)
-
1 isn't an issue for anyone in my group but I can understand that it can be an issue for others so I'm not opposed to the idea of reworking the system to have smaller numbers. I know part of why they did it that way was to have a particular rate of advancement so it'll have to be carefully considered what numbers to go to for it to not be too fast.
2 is a little more complicated. One of the ideas of why they did the partial skills/traits was players could effectively bank XP so that it wouldn't take as many sessions/campaigns to advance a skill or activate a trait but in practice I suspect you are right and that almost no one does this, at least not in the fashion intended.
3 I wouldn't say they serve no purpose or that they have to go but I would certainly agree that they need serious re-working and a cost change at the minimum.
4 I'm not bothered by non-linear skill advancement and actually prefer it.
5 I have a tough time with this one as AToW's current system for untrained skill usage does give a purpose to the 0 rank of a skill yet I still find that I'm not all that opposed to the idea that a character could just start at +1 instead just to simplify things a bit.
6 I'll agree some re-organization would be in order but I'm not bothered by the rest as at the TW level a lot of suits are pretty similar with no real variation and it doesn't bother me that remains largely true at the AToW level.
7 This is something that I think could be implemented easy enough if the RPG side becomes more popular.
8 I think this only makes sense if 7 can be made to work so as to not be overly constrictive either.
9 Considering one of my major efforts was to re-arrange/create new skill fields so that they all have 5 skills I can't argue against this. Heck I am even finding I'm not that opposed to the idea of dropping rebates all together.
A #10 for me would be better support for tying what you can get a hold of in terms of Equipped and Wealth to your character's lot in life rather than just dumping XP into separate traits that often result in completely unbalanced characters via what quickly become XP sinks.
-
1. Readjusting the character creation to a lower point total. One of the major issues I have found players have with the system is 5,000 points is just to many points to effective monitor and have fun in the process. It makes the act of character creation seem more like work then entertainment.
Maybe. Maybe not. Pluses and minuses, and there may be other issues...it may not be the amount, but what is done with them
2. Partial Skills/Traits need to be looked at again. While the idea of partial advancements seems to add flavor to the paths, in truth it is normally ignored and the points are just reassigned during optimization. Making it a complete waste of time, and just another exercise in inventive ideas leading nowhere. A suggestion here would be to add a suggested Trait line to the modules. This would allow for major traits at or near full cost included in the cost of the package, and a spot for minor/flavor traits that the player can pick up during optimization to fill out the character. example: +25 Fit for Clan PCs, this traits total cost is 200 xp. That's just 12.5% of the cost, so unless the PC wanted that trait in the first place that just 25 wasted point he/she will reassign during optimization
Case in point. Optimisation
Solution: Negative Traits kick in at level 1 with even -1 XP invested, but optimisation is not allowed. You can spend flexible XP to remove negative traits, but they are still part and parcel of your character and cannot otherwise be ignored, while XP residing in positive traits or skills is banked ready for you to practise some more and increase the skill level.
3. Fast and slow learner have to go. They really do nothing for the game, they cost to much for what they do, they are hard to balance with the non-linear skill advancement, and instead of adding flavor feel more like a punishment for Clan characters that they need to get rid of.
I wouldn't necessarily say removed, but somehow reworked.
5. Zero level skills are a waste of time. While the idea behind 0-level skills is ok, they are really not needed, a quick unskilled rule can fix any need for it and one line "can't use unskilled" can fix issues with higher level skills. Just seems like a wasted line and unneeded point use in skill advancement.
Possibly.
6. Battlearmor rules need to be cleaned up majorly. They are a mess and allover the place in the rule book. They also need some veneration from one suit to another like they had in 2nd and 3rd (their to generic)[/.quote]
The entire combat system needs to be cleaned up - my solution was to start from the board game, and then just flat out state small arms can't hurt support vehicles, support weapons can't hurt Mechs. Any exceptions require the weapon to have an anti Armour property. Also changed the BAR system - An AP less than the BAR simply bounces. It created three separate tiers of combat - personal, support and Mech, with personal covering everything from bare skin to heavy ballistic plate armour and light "armour" on vehicles, Support covering light vehicles right up to BattleArmour and Mech covering everything that is tougher than a support vehicle. Any time there was a fight, we already had the rules available. Integration with the board game should be easy.
7. Modules need more veneration and flavor, like in 2nd and 3rd where there where different school/real life packages for the different factions.
While I agree that 3rd took this too far with the ridiculous number of modules dedicated to small veneration in lifestyle. AToW went to far in the other direction by making them all overly generic.
Maybe, but again, what would you add? Flavour and customisation is provided by the flexible XPs and being blunt, too many customisation options simply leads to bloat with lots of pages given over to relatively minor differences. That either means thickening the rulebook or spreading faction information over several books
9. The way Skill Fields are handled in the book is just bad. its a package all the work should be done for the characters, they should not have to do the math to figure out the package discounts, it should be done for them already.
The entire Character Creation system has, IMO, a poor and confusing layout and that layout alone seems responsible for half the problems. Stage 3 is another culprit. Traits also need clarification - reputations can be both good and bad, for example. While a "Quirk" might be treated as a Compulsion in Gameplay, it also has very different meanings and connotations. A Knowledge skill similarly could have a very different role from an Interest skill. Specialisations are handled poorly -e.g protocol\faction\SubFaction appears to be a Specialisation but is treated as a main skill. Some of the Subskill categories are too broad, others too narrow.
The only other aspect that comes to mind is the skill resolution system. I'm not sure that the ATOW system is that good, and the mix of Single/Double Attribute checks and Complex/Simple and Basic/Advanced can be offputting. I am certain there is a more streamlined way to present this.
-
Maybe. Maybe not. Pluses and minuses, and there may be other issues...it may not be the amount, but what is done with them
The issues I have found with the 16 or so players that I have tried to get into AToW is the number seems overwhelming to them right at first glance. It may not be in practice but if they go in with that perception right off, it tends to sour them on the system from the start and any little hiccup becomes Mt. Everest to them. Then there is the few that made it through character creation (4 players), when you have a player die all they can think about is "oh great I have to go thru that again".
Case in point. Optimization
Solution: Negative Traits kick in at level 1 with even -1 XP invested, but optimisation is not allowed. You can spend flexible XP to remove negative traits, but they are still part and parcel of your character and cannot otherwise be ignored, while XP residing in positive traits or skills is banked ready for you to practice some more and increase the skill level.
The issues here is "Optimization" is one of the save graces of the system, the players liked it and removing it would have caused even more of them to turn away from it. It allowed them to make the character they wanted and not be shoehorned into what the game wanted them to be. While I would say the modules need to be more complete I can't agree that removing optimization is a good idea.
I wouldn't necessarily say removed, but somehow reworked.
The problem with them in their current incarnation is they are not worth the points the system claims so they cost to much to buy/buy-off and force a player to constraint on just a few skills to get the most benefit from buy/buy-off. I understand the need to keep them from becoming a must have/easy buy-off, but as of now they are just not working in the game. If they can be fixed great, if not they have to go.
Possibly.
There just doesn't seem to be a point to them IMHO other then to slow skill growth. We already have an unskilled use rule why do we need it
Maybe, but again, what would you add? Flavour and customisation is provided by the flexible XPs and being blunt, too many customisation options simply leads to bloat with lots of pages given over to relatively minor differences. That either means thickening the rulebook or spreading faction information over several books
This bring up my #10 that I forgot; CGL waste to much of the page count on 4 page stories (each chapter around 40 pages total), archtypes that no one uses,overly decorative charts,etc.
Which could easily be used for more modules.
The entire Character Creation system has, IMO, a poor and confusing layout and that layout alone seems responsible for half the problems. Stage 3 is another culprit. Traits also need clarification - reputations can be both good and bad, for example. While a "Quirk" might be treated as a Compulsion in Gameplay, it also has very different meanings and connotations. A Knowledge skill similarly could have a very different role from an Interest skill. Specialisations are handled poorly -e.g protocol\faction\SubFaction appears to be a Specialisation but is treated as a main skill. Some of the Subskill categories are too broad, others too narrow.
Can't disagree here. The layout team needs to look into that.
The only other aspect that comes to mind is the skill resolution system. I'm not sure that the ATOW system is that good, and the mix of Single/Double Attribute checks and Complex/Simple and Basic/Advanced can be offputting. I am certain there is a more streamlined way to present this.
Not sure I completely agree, but it does need to be looked at.
-
To be clearer on #7
I am not looking for; Tour of Duty: Clan-Sphere Liaison, Tour of Duty: Harvest Trials, Tour of Duty: Ice Hellion Flurry Unit, ETC..
I am looking for ; Lyran Alliance Academy/Nagelring , Federated Suns Academy/War College of Goshen, Collegium Bellorum lmperium, ETC..
I want a difference between a Death commandos, DEST, or a Safe agents training.
I want there to be an effect from me going to the Draconis Combine Academy/Sun Tzu School of Combat or the Federated Suns Academy/NAIS College of Military Sciences.
Even if this is done in a PDF only format I would be fine with it.
-
I would like that too but the trouble I see is we need to grow Battletech, especially the RPG side, before that can be viable even as a PDF only product.
-
I would like that too but the trouble I see is we need to grow Battletech, especially the RPG side, before that can be viable even as a PDF only product.
But there in lies the problem.
How do you grow a generic RPG if there is no flavor to character creation until you grow it?
If you don't show players that the game is more then just a set of numbers in the battletech universe there is no point in playing it.
Role-playing is about experiencing the universe through the eyes of your unique PC, but if its just a generic group of numbers with little to differentiate it from other PC it's no better that just playing as one of the archetypes. If that's what is wanted then why have a character creation engine in the first place? Just have a bunch of archetypes.
-
Am I the only one that can't quite parse your use of "veneration"? I think I know what you mean, but I'd really rather just know.
With regard to your latest response regarding #7: the math works against you here. There are too many faction to make that work from a page count angle, and I don't mean publication... actual writing counts too. TPTB went with a way that provides maximum flexibility at the Stage 3 point, which lets the Affiliation show through if you let it. Kuritan characters are going to focus more on Martial Arts, and Davion characters on Strategy, for just two examples.
For the record, I completely agree with you regarding including fiction in rule books. It drives me crazy when TPTB cite about page count constraints, then include that much fiction.
Holy cats! Two more posts while I was writing the above! As far as the point about differentiation, I think the Affiliation stage does a lot of that. Yes, it requires one to look deeper at the whole picture, but I think TPTB actually did a good job there.
In defense of the Skill Field rebate system, I can see why the TPTB went with a more general (if slightly more confusing for some) rule than simply calculating each Skill Field ahead of time. The math is at work again, here. The number of Skill Fields is high.
Level zero skills make sense to me from the perspective that getting slightly better at something (i.e., level 1) is a bit easier than learning how to a thing in the first place. It also makes calculating further improvement easier.
I'm already well past what I consider an ideal post length, so I'll just state that I've already agreed elsewhere that the organization of the character creation section could be better, and stop here.
-
The 5,000 point issues also comes into play with the traits.
Due to the large point total and the way character creation works, traits wind up being prohibitively expensive for both the GM and PCs to use correctly in a RPG sense.
If a diplomat player spends time wining and dining a NPC I as the GM have to decide if;
I'm going to just give him the Connections trait (100+x p)
Force him to wait till he can pay 100 xp to get something he should get from role-playing
Or have him waste xp building up to having something he should get from role-playing
Same goes for the Enemy trait (100+x p)
either I give him a free 100x p for pissing someone off or he/she gets a negative trait without any benefits.
Either way you look at it the high point value is what really creates the issues here.
-
With regard to that second scenario, I did give a player 100 XP when they earned the Bloodmark merited by their behavior. They better spend those 100 XP wisely, because the pain I will extract for it will absolutely be worth it to me.
-
I think traits like those are for starting back ground. Contacts and enemies acquired during the game do not need a trait.
-
Am I the only one that can't quite parse your use of "veneration"? I think I know what you mean, but I'd really rather just know.
With regard to your latest response regarding #7: the math works against you here. There are too many faction to make that work from a page count angle, and I don't mean publication... actual writing counts too. TPTB went with a way that provides maximum flexibility at the Stage 3 point, which lets the Affiliation show through if you let it. Kuritan characters are going to focus more on Martial Arts, and Davion characters on Strategy, for just two examples.
For the record, I completely agree with you regarding including fiction in rule books. It drives me crazy when TPTB cite about page count constraints, then include that much fiction.
Holy cats! Two more posts while I was writing the above! As far as the point about differentiation, I think the Affiliation stage does a lot of that. Yes, it requires one to look deeper at the whole picture, but I think TPTB actually did a good job there.
In defense of the Skill Field rebate system, I can see why the TPTB went with a more general (if slightly more confusing for some) rule than simply calculating each Skill Field ahead of time. The math is at work again, here. The number of Skill Fields is high.
Level zero skills make sense to me from the perspective that getting slightly better at something (i.e., level 1) is a bit easier than learning how to a thing in the first place. It also makes calculating further improvement easier.
I'm already well past what I consider an ideal post length, so I'll just state that I've already agreed elsewhere that the organization of the character creation section could be better, and stop here.
Sorry it should be "variations" auto correct can really be a pain sometimes. >:D
As for the Affiliation stage being the point of differentiation, I don't disagree that this is a point, just that it should be the only point of differentiation.
A DEST agent is trained differently then a Safe agent and the system should show this.
"#7: the math works against you here. There are too many faction to make that work from a page count angle, and I don't mean publication... actual writing counts too."
I have to disagree with you here as this has been done before in 3rd ed and on a much large scale then what I and asking for.
That said there is a large amount of work already done as they have the complete 3rd edition life path list to work from.
And again we don't need every "I'll say it "dumb"" life path. Since AToW uses a zero point module system it woulds not be that hard to convert it.
Just to be clear before it is said, no I will not do it myself it's their game and their responsibility. If they don't want to do it that's fine but I'm not doing it for them.
-
Thanks for the clarification! :thumbsup:
I do think the flexibility built into the later modules can account for the additional variation you're looking for, but I can see your point about "not doing it for them".
As for Robroy's point (+1 for name selection there, btw), I believe in giving the players SOMETHING for the pain I'm going to inflict due to their behavior. "Live fast, die young" applies to PCs too...
-
Oh by all means players should get rewarded for good role play, I just don't think every contact and enemy, acquired during play, needs a trait.
-
Thanks for the clarification! :thumbsup:
I do think the flexibility built into the later modules can account for the additional variation you're looking for, but I can see your point about "not doing it for them".
As for Robroy's point (+1 for name selection there, btw), I believe in giving the players SOMETHING for the pain I'm going to inflict due to their behavior. "Live fast, die young" applies to PCs too...
I think traits like those are for starting back ground. Contacts and enemies acquired during the game do not need a trait.
As Daryk has stated
you would be right if there was no mechanical benefit/penalties to Contacts and enemies, but since there are the points matter.
-
Oh sure, Robroy… merely talking to someone doesn't immediately merit a Trait, but when the player does cross that threshold (for example, by destroying the power connection for a receiver at an HPG station they were theoretically protecting), I'm absolutely going to award that XP (AND inflict that pain, e.g., you're confined to quarters until further notice, regardless of what's going on... your battle station is your bunk, not "your" 'mech).
-
Oh sure, Robroy… merely talking to someone doesn't immediately merit a Trait, but when the player does cross that threshold (for example, by destroying the power connection for a receiver at an HPG station they were theoretically protecting), I'm absolutely going to award that XP (AND inflict that pain, e.g., you're confined to quarters until further notice, regardless of what's going on... your battle station is your bunk, not "your" 'mech).
remind me never to play at your table. ;D
Anyway the point is the, exp at the level it is currently set in the game makes it so I am hesitate to award/impose traits on the players due to high cost even when warranted.
Bringing down the exp totals would reduce this issues and could easily be maintained by increasing the cost of hard to get traits (Last Learner)within the new levels.
Example: if you divide the cost by 10 (not saying to do this just an example) increase Fast Learner to 40 exp.
-
The issues I have found with the 16 or so players that I have tried to get into AToW is the number seems overwhelming to them right at first glance. It may not be in practice but if they go in with that perception right off, it tends to sour them on the system from the start and any little hiccup becomes Mt. Everest to them. Then there is the few that made it through character creation (4 players), when you have a player die all they can think about is "oh great I have to go thru that again".
I've gone through Character Creation several times myself and - IMO - the problem isn't necessarily the amount of XP, butt he time taken and the lack of clarity in the rules and how to approach things. Concepts such as the Field Rebate should have been removed and a simple Field cost added for example.
The issues here is "Optimization" is one of the save graces of the system, the players liked it and removing it would have caused even more of them to turn away from it. It allowed them to make the character they wanted and not be shoehorned into what the game wanted them to be. While I would say the modules need to be more complete I can't agree that removing optimization is a good idea.
Again, maybe. As it says - it optimises the character, which encourages them to get rid of all those little bits and pieces of XP that could provide hooks and flavour.
The problem with them in their current incarnation is they are not worth the points the system claims so they cost to much to buy/buy-off and force a player to constraint on just a few skills to get the most benefit from buy/buy-off. I understand the need to keep them from becoming a must have/easy buy-off, but as of now they are just not working in the game. If they can be fixed great, if not they have to go.
Yes - I don't think they work well at all. Maybe something such as "Earn x XP for a critical success or failure"
This bring up my #10 that I forgot; CGL waste to much of the page count on 4 page stories (each chapter around 40 pages total), archtypes that no one uses,overly decorative charts,etc.
Which could easily be used for more modules.
All of which are kinda important...and to be honest, there are enough modules. More can always be added, but then you start running into variations of a theme.
Not sure I completely agree, but it does need to be looked at.
Problem is that you have 3 or 6 different set ups and ways to adjust things. In a sense, it's all on paper so it doesn't matter but at the same time it looks very complex, with the record sheet being filled with obscure little codes.
CGL would have done better, I think, to adapt the skill system from MW2 - Roll 2D6, add your skill. In many ways, the same, but perceptions matter and if a game looks too complicated, it can be offputting. Maybe the new Cue based system will solve this, but then again, it might make things too complicated.
-
I am looking for ; Lyran Alliance Academy/Nagelring , Federated Suns Academy/War College of Goshen, Collegium Bellorum lmperium, ETC..
End of the day, those are all training academies, with similar curriculums and differ mainly in the people attending them...which is the Faction part of character generation. While you can certainly create different modules for each school, what differences are there that would be worth creating that table? You have a different school song, different school emblems and colours, maybe an enhanced reputation for going to New Albion and a poorer one for attending Blackjack.
I want a difference between a Death commandos, DEST, or a Safe agents training.
Ditto.
I want there to be an effect from me going to the Draconis Combine Academy/Sun Tzu School of Combat or the Federated Suns Academy/NAIS College of Military Sciences.
Yes - but what differences do you imagine there can be? It isn't that I object to your desire, but I'm not seeing the need for such specific modules when the end result are characters that are taught the same things, with flavour and personalisation coming from the same pool of flexible XP. I mean, if I want a character from the Robinson Academy, I can just add Quirk\Hates Combine - or switch that to Liao for the Warriors Hall.
There is a benefit to what you ask for...but I'm not sure it is as large a benefit to warrant the effort to be put into it and it runs into the problem MW3 did - too many paths split over too many books.
-
If a diplomat player spends time wining and dining a NPC I as the GM have to decide if;
I'm going to just give him the Connections trait (100+x p)
Force him to wait till he can pay 100 xp to get something he should get from role-playing
Or have him waste xp building up to having something he should get from role-playing
No - you make him build the connection and the better he does that, the stronger it becomes. If needs be, you make him roll to see how well he schmoozes the mark, and if successful, he can add the NPC as a connection. I don't see any point in using XP for what should be roleplaying. The Connections trait is there to address connections made during character generation, not gameplay.
either I give him a free 100x p for pissing someone off or he/she gets a negative trait without any benefits.
Yeah - no benefits. He should have ticked off the powerful NPC and next time he'll learn to hold his mouth.
Either way you look at it the high point value is what really creates the issues here.
Well, technically it's the use of a bad example...
-
remind me never to play at your table. ;D
*snip*
LOL! I suspect geography will take care of that problem... ;)
Talen5000 is heading down a path I mostly agree with. The flavor differentiation can be accounted for with the flexibility inherent in the system, and I think that was the TPTB's intent.
-
As for Robroy's point (+1 for name selection there, btw), I believe in giving the players SOMETHING for the pain I'm going to inflict due to their behavior. "Live fast, die young" applies to PCs too...
You are.
The knowledge and experience that backtalking the First Prince of the Federated Suns is a good way to get your self sent to the Clan front.
A valuable life lesson.
More succinctly - if he roleplayed the character well, he gets a suitable XP reward. But he doesn't get the reward simply by gaining an enemy and he doesn't need to spend the XP to gain a connection.
-
The enforced timeout from the 'mech cockpit is only part of the pain I'm inflicting. There's still that court martial waiting down the line... ^-^
-
End of the day, those are all training academies, with similar curriculums and differ mainly in the people attending them...which is the Faction part of character generation. While you can certainly create different modules for each school, what differences are there that would be worth creating that table? You have a different school song, different school emblems and colours, maybe an enhanced reputation for going to New Albion and a poorer one for attending Blackjack.
Ditto.
Yes - but what differences do you imagine there can be? It isn't that I object to your desire, but I'm not seeing the need for such specific modules when the end result are characters that are taught the same things, with flavour and personalisation coming from the same pool of flexible XP. I mean, if I want a character from the Robinson Academy, I can just add Quirk\Hates Combine - or switch that to Liao for the Warriors Hall.
There is a benefit to what you ask for...but I'm not sure it is as large a benefit to warrant the effort to be put into it and it runs into the problem MW3 did - too many paths split over too many books.
You see I don't agree with you here.
Outside of the Quirk\Hates Combine, to me each academy had different curriculum's.
While you are correct that the main field skills they teach are going to be the same.
The difference comes in in the extracurricular and non-field skills.
Like Melee Weapons being more impotent at a Combine academy or protocol being a major skill at one of the premiere academy.
And Contacts and other traits being mandatory to enter some of the academy.
The point is even if they use the current generic academy and give the option to add a school flavor package it would be a step in the right direction for me.
-
Hmmm... a school flavor package would be enough for you? I think I may have found my next AToW tweak thread there. Give me a week or two to at least get my game off Astrokaszy, and I'll take a shot at it. I think the flex XP are more than enough to work with there. The trick will be scoping it so the Faction level tweak leaves enough flex for the individual institution tweaks down the line...
-
You see I don't agree with you here.
Outside of the Quirk\Hates Combine, to me each academy had different curriculum's.
While you are correct that the main field skills they teach are going to be the same.
The difference comes in in the extracurricular and non-field skills.
Like Melee Weapons being more impotent at a Combine academy or protocol being a major skill at one of the premiere academy.
And Contacts and other traits being mandatory to enter some of the academy.
The point is even if they use the current generic academy and give the option to add a school flavor package it would be a step in the right direction for me.
All of which can be added via the flexible XP option should you desire.
What the game doesn't do is tell you how to spend your XPs to gain that flavour.
Would there be a benefit in doing so? Yes....but looking at the lifepath system, I think it would be a minor benefit for a fairly major cost in time.
ATOW gives you a generic academy and flexible XPs to address flavour. You also have a faction and sub faction options.
What you want can be done...but I think, for the most part, the cost isn't worth it.
-
All of which can be added via the flexible XP option should you desire.
What the game doesn't do is tell you how to spend your XPs to gain that flavour.
Would there be a benefit in doing so? Yes....but looking at the lifepath system, I think it would be a minor benefit for a fairly major cost in time.
ATOW gives you a generic academy and flexible XPs to address flavour. You also have a faction and sub faction options.
What you want can be done...but I think, for the most part, the cost isn't worth it.
Never said they couldn't be covered by flexible XPs.
The issues is what is the difference between one school or another.
I've never gone to a Combine academy and neither has anyone else on these forums. (unless something weird is happening)
So how do I spend my flexible XPs to simulate it? What if my friends PC goes there and he chooses a more academic flexible XPs grouping.
The Combine academy loses flavor because there is no direction
That's what guides like lifepaths are for, to tell you what a Combine academy is like.
If they don't then there just a group of skills that mean nothing.
-
Never said they couldn't be covered by flexible XPs.
The issues is what is the difference between one school or another.
I've never gone to a Combine academy and neither has anyone else on these forums. (unless something weird is happening)
So how do I spend my flexible XPs to simulate it? What if my friends PC goes there and he chooses a more academic flexible XPs grouping.
The Combine academy loses flavor because there is no direction
That's what guides like lifepaths are for, to tell you what a Combine academy is like.
If they don't then there just a group of skills that mean nothing.
Well, let's compare.
The NAIS increased 4 stats and gave you traits of promotion and well-equipped.
You got an academic skill, a bureaucracy skill, computers, swimming and advanced training in leadership, strategy, your choice of 3 skills, and access to a field
In ATOW , this would presumably count as a Military school for 830XP, plus field costs.
You have a pre requisites which add flavour, you get XP towards traits and skills and stats, and you get a choice of military fields.
You get a standard training which is likely to be shared between all such academies, and 100XP for customisation and flavour skills. And access to Advanced and Special Training
How do you spend your XP to simulate it? You don't. You dont have to. You simply say "This is where I went. This is where I trained."
Now, I get you want flavour...but what is the major difference between say, the NAIS and Sangalmore? Both elite colleges, both with similar schools and standards. The differences in culture are going to be based on their native faction - you aren't likely to get Quirk /Pro-Skye with the NAIS - and not on the type or quality of training which is what comes with the Academy. And you get that type of flavour with your choice of faction and sub-faction. Not your choice of school. Even in MW3 where such lists were given, what was offered? You got bonuses in stats, in traits, and access to field skills. And for military schools, bonuses to BOD, RFL, Well Equipped and Promotion were common...as were skills such as protocol\faction. All of which are fairly generic and covered by flexible skill points.
So yes - some "guidance" might be beneficial. But the guidance is that at the NAIS, you get taught Military History\Federated Suns while at the SZA, it'll be Military History\Draconis Combine. In one, it'll be Protocol\FedSuns, in the other Protocol\Combine. In one it'll be langauge\Japanese, the other Language\English.
What I am trying to say is that yes - I understand the desire for detail, for flavour.
But, given the relatively minor differences you are talking about, providing that sort of detail simpy isn't worth it. And given the way MW3 and ATOW operate, you can't easily rework the Lifepaths from one to the other either. What you would end up doing would be to reduce the flexibile XP at each Academy in favour of small bonuses to skills or traits
ATOW provides you the opportunity to be family trained, to be enlisted, to go to an elite academy or OCS, and they cover the major pathways.
Now, as I said -there is a benefit to what you want. But also a cost in page count, and in spreading the information around between books. Now, the ideal place for such a product would be the equivalent of the Handbook or House Books or Field Manuals. Overall though, I woud not expect them. Which is a pity. But one that I think is understandable - it would be a major cost in time, in opportunity, in page cost and in player convenience for what ultimately is very minor gain. The existing rules simply tell you to pick a Major Academy, add the exacvt school to your character bio, gives you a standrd skill set and allows you to add elective skills and traits to provide flavour, much of which is provdied by the Faction anyway.
-
Agreed that the system is pretty time consuming to create a character. That being said I finally built a character along the lines of John Wick. Some aspects were different as I wanted other skills, so I chose different paths. All in all it did accomplish what I wanted just took a while.
-
Well some good news, iirc they mentioned in the AMA last night they want the new Destiny thing to sit alongside AToW not replace it. So sounds like AS to TW kinda thing.
Anyway, I saw you folks were discussion BA, and last I had checked BA still needs some work. Most non tournament legal equipment doesn't have AToW stats, this goes for both BA equipment itself as well as anti infantry equipment for mechs/vehicles. There's also a few pieces of equipment with undefined interactions with the rules, and BA Myomer boosters and vibro battleclaws are backwards in their effectiveness.
Anyway I'm going to have to add my support to AToW char gen being a huge pain in the ass. Not insurmountable, but ideally the system shouldn't be quite so unappealing. I'd also second that the tiny 5XP stuff is pointless. That's not much of an XP bank since it's such a small fraction of a level. I'd say if they really wanted to push a propensity toward something without giving you a whole skill level, something more like a quarter of a skill level is a better choice, but at the end of the day, most of the time any incomplete levels are just going to get optimized away.
I can see some issues trying to overhaul the whole system, though, that'd break the sourcebooks AGAIN, when the system still PLAYS pretty well, so I think it might be a good idea to change how they do their pregen characters. I'd love to see a bog standard X type of character (face, mechwarrior, tech etc.) with job related skills, and a menu of backgrounds below that add the more flavor based skills (eg, DEST troopers with their Katanas) or some other easy way of making the premade characters less generic.
-
I know there is a formula for weapons not listed to get their AToW stats but might not be great for handling stuff with AI tags.
There are a number of items that I think have suffered from someone grabbing the stats for one piece of gear and swapping them for another. This is something I do hope they fix in the future.
-
I know there's a formula for converting mech/vehicle scale weapons to AToW, but BA weapons fall into a sort of middle ground (as for AI weapons), so those don't convert as neatly. It was a few years ago that I asked, but I was told there wasn't a specific conversion rule for that. Herb said they started with the conversion rules then fudged it a bit.
-
I know there's a formula for converting mech/vehicle scale weapons to AToW, but BA weapons fall into a sort of middle ground (as for AI weapons), so those don't convert as neatly. It was a few years ago that I asked, but I was told there wasn't a specific conversion rule for that. Herb said they started with the conversion rules then fudged it a bit.
I still think that conversion rules are the wrong way to go.
Preferable, IMO, to start with tbe box set and go from there. Namely....you don't need to convert small arms and support weapons because the answer is the same..they do zero damage.
-
I think you have that backwards. I'm not talking about converting small arms to do damage to mechs; I'm talking about large weapons doing damage to squishy unarmored meatbags. Fired against a vehicular unit or BA, large weapons do damage per TW rules, but fired against infantry, anything with an AI tag or mounted to a Battlearmor has individual AP/BD values, but these are lacking for everything not in TW/TM/BMM
What are the AP/BD values of a ER Small Pulse Laser mounted to a mech and what values if a battlearmor is carrying one (stuff like Small Pulse lasers have different values for the mech and BA versions)? What about a BA mounted ER Medium Pulse Laser (the mech mounted one just multiplies the damage, but BA stuff has actual values), or a BA specific item like the BA LB-X AC.
-
I think you have that backwards. I'm not talking about converting small arms to do damage to mechs; I'm talking about large weapons doing damage to squishy unarmored meatbags.
Are you hit? Then you die. You're talking about calculating damage from being hit with a tank shell. In an RPG, Mechs and combat scale weapons should be rare unless the PC also has similar equipment. If you don't at least have Battlearmour, then if you see a Mech you avoid it just as you would avoid an M1 - and the Mech should have the same restrictions in firing on infantry and small groups as a tank - they aren't going to use a main gun in their own depot, but they will call it in and expect infantry to go and get you.
Meanwhile...your plan to take out the Mech? Your small arms will bounce. But fortunately you have a support MG. Unfortunately, it too will bounce. You pick up a support scale laser...great. It bounces. The you pick up the infantry portable missile. Great - its effective but all you do is chip the paint.
TPTB have always tried to allow for conversions between the different scales of combat. That's why in TM you have nonsense such as damage values for bow and arrows.
What they should do - IMO - is simple and straightforward.
Small arms vs infantry
Support weapons vs Support Vehicles
Mech scale weapons vs Mechs
And if you want them to hit the row above, you give a weapon an AntiArmour feature, such as Anti-Armour (x) where it does x points of damage.
And if you want it to hit the scale below - or rather vs infantry because we already have Mech vs Support rules. Or, if you do want a degree of survivability, you simply equate a Mech scale weapon with an existing alternative and say it is simply firing in anti-infantry mode - it fires slower, uses less ammo, is more accurate.
Bulky complex conversion rules are not needed - at most, just a simple rule stating that the anti-infantry/low power mode of the weapon in question is treated as X.
-
You're still not reading what I am saying. Not once did I mention anything about firing infantry weapons against mechs, and I specifically mentioned mech weapons with the AI (anti infantry tag).
A regular mech weapon fired at a person absolutely turns them into a paste (the example given was a ML doing 10E/30 damage, for reference a clan Elemental has a maximum possible HP of 18 if you max the BOD stat), but something like a small pulse laser doesn't work the same way. Being an anti-infantry weapon, something like a Small Pulse Laser fires a LOT of shots that may or may not be fatal, so has stats not unlike an infantry weapon. We're not talking about being shot by the main cannon of an Abrams, we're talking about the commander pointing his machine gun at you. It's not bad, unusual or complicated. The problem is that stuff like the ER Small Pulse Laser which shows up in TO rather than TW/TM/BMM which does the same thing doesn't have a stat block for AToW.
-
You're still not reading what I am saying. Not once did I mention anything about firing infantry weapons against mechs, and I specifically mentioned mech weapons with the AI (anti infantry tag).
And I answered - the infantry gets vapourised. Not damaged...just dead. Your are talkign about a weapon that, even as a small pulse laser, can destroy modern day tank.
Infantry isn't going to stand a chance. If you want to posit the existence of a low power anti infantry mode, then simply equate it with a suitable small arm or support scale weapons for which stats already exist.
No complex conversion needed. Just, at worst, a table listing the equivalent small/support scale weaponry.
-
No, BOP is right. There are a number of AI weapons that need conversion rules/stats.
-
One thing that is needed as well is an updated gear list to move it into Dark Ages. Not everything made it from ATOW to IO.
Also not everything from the Handbooks (Kurita, I'm looking at you!) made it into IO as well.
-
No, BOP is right. There are a number of AI weapons that need conversion rules/stats.
And which approach do you prefer....?
Mech scale Machine Gun deals 2D6 damage to infantry...all hit die.
Mech scale Machine Gun acts as a support machine gun when fired in an anti infantry mode
He's looking for AP/BD values for weapons which a...don't have them and b...don't need them. If his Elemental gets hit by his small pulse laser...the Elemental dies because Mech scale weaponry should not be survivable.
If you want to mode the AI mode as something that is survivable, again conversion mechanics are not needed. Just equate it with an existing weapon system and use the stats for that.
-
And which approach do you prefer....?
Mech scale Machine Gun deals 2D6 damage to infantry...all hit die.
Mech scale Machine Gun acts as a support machine gun when fired in an anti infantry mode
He's looking for AP/BD values for weapons which a...don't have them and b...don't need them. If his Elemental gets hit by his small pulse laser...the Elemental dies because Mech scale weaponry should not be survivable.
If you want to mode the AI mode as something that is survivable, again conversion mechanics are not needed. Just equate it with an existing weapon system and use the stats for that.
Actually, no. For TW PBI are considered dead, but in one of the other books, I think SO, they might be wounded just no longer combat effective. Yes that is campaign play, but my point is mech scale AI weapons are not always instant death.
-
He's looking for AP/BD values for weapons which a...don't have them and b...don't need them. If his Elemental gets hit by his small pulse laser...the Elemental dies because Mech scale weaponry should not be survivable.
You're going to need to review the suppression fire rules to see why stats are needed for weapons that don't have them yet. This isn't about what happens when 1 person gets hit, but about a weapon's ability to affect many people. There's no way to determine that in ATOW without stats.
-
Actually, no. For TW PBI are considered dead, but in one of the other books, I think SO, they might be wounded just no longer combat effective. Yes that is campaign play, but my point is mech scale AI weapons are not always instant death.
In which case, you model them after existing weaponry - the SPL becomes equivalent to support MG.
There is little need to bother with complicated conversions where so many points of damage cause so much damage to vehicles and so much to people. If a GM wants to send his players up against Mech scale weaponry, he need to give them Mechs
-
You're going to need to review the suppression fire rules to see why stats are needed for weapons that don't have them yet. This isn't about what happens when 1 person gets hit, but about a weapon's ability to affect many people. There's no way to determine that in ATOW without stats.
Intimidation Skill check
-
Intimidation Skill check
You're rather missing the point. Please review the Suppression Fire rules, p. 174-175.
-
You're rather missing the point. Please review the Suppression Fire rules, p. 174-175.
No...I don't think I did. The main point of such an "attack" isn't to cause damage but to intimidate the opponents into keeping their heads down. Any damage or hit or injury is beside the point. Or usually so. A successful suppression fire attack is one where the target does keep his head down and doesn't fire back.
But yes - you mean the Suppression fire rules as listed in the ATOW rulebook. Which isn't so much for Suppression Fire but is a simple unaimed attack made across mutliple hexes. Spray n Pray.
At which point we can see the next section - splash damage - for an idea on how to handle an area of effect attack. Which is what this is. Most game normally do so by attacking all characters wihtin a certain area or radius.
The point I am trying to make is that combat resolution in ATOW is made unnecessarily complex through attempting various rules at conversion between weapons scales rather than accept the fact that this should be an RPG. An awful lot of the combat rules and complexity could be avoided simply by embracing the in universe "small arms don't damage Mechs" rather than try to shoehorn in rules to let them do that. Your suggestion here about Suppression Fire is an example...it is an area of affect attack and the rules already cover that. If you want a more specific term, then we could call it strafing but it still doesn't require special one off rules. "Suppression Fire" is an unaimed attack that attacks a specific target and targets within a specific radius....said radius in the case of suppression fire being a straight line rather than a surrounding area.
-
Most game
Irrelevant. I showed you why stats are needed if you want to use printed rules.
Your basis of questioning the need for why stats are needed is apparently based on your own preferences and house rules on how to resolve it. That's great, but that doesn't mean that the people who want stats are wrong.
-
Unless you're suggesting everyone in the target area is automatically hit every time, you're not really simplifying anything anyway. You still have to figure out who got hit.
In which case, you model them after existing weaponry - the SPL becomes equivalent to support MG.
There is little need to bother with complicated conversions where so many points of damage cause so much damage to vehicles and so much to people. If a GM wants to send his players up against Mech scale weaponry, he need to give them Mechs
There's already a stat block for all of those; it's not like there's some complicated conversions you have to do every single time. My comment was that the existing stat block has some omissions.
Also my comments include Battlerarmor weapons which are effectively treated as very large support weapons: large enough to somewhat threaten mechs, but still small enough squishy humans aren't turned into a fine mist.
What you seem to be suggesting isn't simplification, it's limitations. "mechs and people fighting each other is always going to be pointless so don't even bother with rules for it", but I'd argue the RPG would be much worse off for that. The plucky infantry squad mobbing a mech to death is a powerful visual that gets used most of the time infantry show up around mechs, and what you keep suggesting doesn't even change much. Small arms really don't do much to bother vehicular units. Also, and I must reiterate this again; I wasn't even discussing it, because there weren't any ommissions.
On the flip side, saying, well I should just have everyone in a mech or nobody in a mech needlessly hamstrings the story. Gone is the mission that went awry and now the PCs have to figure out how to avoid the mech on patrol, and saying, if the mech on patrol sees you, you just die replaces all the dramatic tension with annoyance over "bullshit mechanics" because nobody likes rocks fall everybody dies.
-
What you seem to be suggesting isn't simplification, it's limitations. "mechs and people fighting each other is always going to be pointless so don't even bother with rules for it"
And I'll say again -what are the rules for when someone is hit with an 120mm APFSDS shell? Because when you are talking about infantry vs mechs, that is what you are talking about.
Gone is the mission that went awry and now the PCs have to figure out how to avoid the mech on patrol, and saying, if the mech on patrol sees you, you just die replaces all the dramatic tension with annoyance over "bullshit mechanics" because nobody likes rocks fall everybody dies.
And I keep hating to bring it up, but again...the analogy of an infantry unit vs a tank does seems appropriate. There isn't much that infantry unit can do to defeat the tank...in a straight up battle, but that doesn't mean nothing can be done. In this instance...are there places where your infantry unit can hide and do they have a satchel charge?
There are ways to make infantry relevant without relying on complex and unnecessary conversion systems
-
Irrelevant. I showed you why stats are needed if you want to use printed rules.
That's the point - this aspect arose because I suggested that a conversion system wasn't necessary, that the printed rules in "ATOW 1stEd" were overly complex and could be replaced by a better system in the topic if discussion - the "AToW 2nd Ed" of the thread title.
-
Finally home from work and almost caught up with the forum...
As rare as it is for me to say this, I'm with Paul here. If SOME anti-infantry weapons have AToW stats, ALL anti-infantry weapons should have them. Robroy explains the rationale perfectly.
And as far as infantry vs. MBTs in the modern day analogy? In most terrain, my money will be on the infantry and their ATGMs. Missiles are the great equalizers in the current day, and there's no reason Support Lasers couldn't be in the future.
-
That's more or less how it works in AToW.
Man-portable missile launchers are dangerous, but aside from maybe support PPCs (which aren't really man-portable) the rest of the support weapons are just a slightly bigger nuisance than small-arms. Speaking of, I think some of the advanced/experimental missile warhead types might need stat blocks.
That's the point - this aspect arose because I suggested that a conversion system wasn't necessary, that the printed rules in "ATOW 1stEd" were overly complex and could be replaced by a better system in the topic if discussion - the "AToW 2nd Ed" of the thread title.
My argument is that "you die" isn't really any simpler than "take x points of damage "when you still have to go through the process of figuring out who got hit in the first place.
Any complexity doesn't lie in the the rules for infantry and non infantry fighting each other, it's the combat rules in general, and the interactions between damage types and armor ratings which already exists outside vehicular scale combat. Mechs just have bigger numbers
-
That's the point - this aspect arose because I suggested that a conversion system wasn't necessary, that the printed rules in "ATOW 1stEd" were overly complex and could be replaced by a better system in the topic if discussion - the "AToW 2nd Ed" of the thread title.
Ah, I didn't see where you meant it as a replacement.
Anyway, it does seem you want some sort of mechanism to create the functionality of suppression fire, so we can agree there.
-
Ah, I didn't see where you meant it as a replacement.
Anyway, it does seem you want some sort of mechanism to create the functionality of suppression fire, so we can agree there.
It's not that I object to the current system...it's functional.
It's just, IMO and I'm sure there are several who will disagree (but I don't think I'm the onyl oen to ntocie the clunkiness of the combat system) the system is overly complicated and fiddly.
There are several reasons for this...including (again IMO) the origins of the game where it wasn't reallya "true" RPG but an adjunct to the Table Top. While that aspect has certainly lessened I don't think the RPG has fully shaken off that heritage.
The lack of granularity in the dice roles...the reliance on complicated conversion mechanics...the large numbers of modifiers....it kidna works, but it kinda doens't.
The idea I am positing - it'll never happen, but it's an interesting exercise - is that any fuiture RPG should simply give up on conversions and embrace the Table Top game. No clunky conversions. I don't think that, by itself, will be enough to solidify and improve the gameplay of the RPG but there are other features and aspects that should be considered. You'd get more granularity of results with 3D6 or 2D10 for example, but you'd lose integration with the TT Game. WOudl that be acceptable or should we accept the 2d6
Suppression fire is another example...it's been in the RPG a long time. I have to ask...is it needed? What does it do? Yes - something like it needs to exist, but do we need specific mechanics for it? Can the effect be approximated by other actions? I pointed out two posisbilities myself but thsoe depend on the intention behind the action....one is an intimidation skill, the other is an area of effect attack, with the area beign a stright lien rather than a circle. Does having a specific Suppression Fire rule add anything to the game? Some people will say yes...some will say no
Overall, AToW is a decent system, but flawed. The Character Creation system is let down by a poor layout and some fairly confusing examples and wording for example. There is a certain lack of flavour as well, but that is less easily fixed (without greatly expanding page count). The combat system is clunky as well - IMO. I see room for improvement, but several of the existings system also seem to add complexity for very little gain.
And personally, I think the skill resolution system needs work - there are six different types of skills and then you have professional tiering and unskilled and all that. Again - it works, but it looks clunky and offputting.
Of course, character generation, skill resolution and combat and you pretty much have a new game ;)
Overall...the BTU is or should be a great place to hold an RPG setting. I just think it has been let down by the various ruels systems, each of which did something good, each of which did something bad.
-
It's not that I object to the current system...it's functional.
It's just, IMO and I'm sure there are several who will disagree (but I don't think I'm the onyl oen to ntocie the clunkiness of the combat system) the system is overly complicated and fiddly.
There are several reasons for this...including (again IMO) the origins of the game where it wasn't reallya "true" RPG but an adjunct to the Table Top. While that aspect has certainly lessened I don't think the RPG has fully shaken off that heritage.
The lack of granularity in the dice roles...the reliance on complicated conversion mechanics...the large numbers of modifiers....it kidna works, but it kinda doens't.
The idea I am positing - it'll never happen, but it's an interesting exercise - is that any fuiture RPG should simply give up on conversions and embrace the Table Top game. No clunky conversions. I don't think that, by itself, will be enough to solidify and improve the gameplay of the RPG but there are other features and aspects that should be considered. You'd get more granularity of results with 3D6 or 2D10 for example, but you'd lose integration with the TT Game. WOudl that be acceptable or should we accept the 2d6
Suppression fire is another example...it's been in the RPG a long time. I have to ask...is it needed? What does it do? Yes - something like it needs to exist, but do we need specific mechanics for it? Can the effect be approximated by other actions? I pointed out two posisbilities myself but thsoe depend on the intention behind the action....one is an intimidation skill, the other is an area of effect attack, with the area beign a stright lien rather than a circle. Does having a specific Suppression Fire rule add anything to the game? Some people will say yes...some will say no
Overall, AToW is a decent system, but flawed. The Character Creation system is let down by a poor layout and some fairly confusing examples and wording for example. There is a certain lack of flavour as well, but that is less easily fixed (without greatly expanding page count). The combat system is clunky as well - IMO. I see room for improvement, but several of the existings system also seem to add complexity for very little gain.
And personally, I think the skill resolution system needs work - there are six different types of skills and then you have professional tiering and unskilled and all that. Again - it works, but it looks clunky and offputting.
Of course, character generation, skill resolution and combat and you pretty much have a new game ;)
Overall...the BTU is or should be a great place to hold an RPG setting. I just think it has been let down by the various rules systems, each of which did something good, each of which did something bad.
Yes the current system needs work and that is why I started this tread.
Is is over complicated and fiddly, in some areas yes.
Should it embrace its past and become an add on to the boardgame, no.
The character creation system is flawed but workable, yet this is not a good thing to bring in new players.
The character creation system gives a base for what a Davion mechwarrior is but the system loses flavor after you leave late childhood, and everything becomes generic. Where this is fine for a point buy system or a level system it loses the entire purpose of a lifepath system.
The skill system is fine in it basic mechanics, but gets way over-complicated by the multiple different types of skills SB,SA,CB,CA, untrained Simple and Advanced and still added to this by giving a penalty to unskilled use on top of the untrained Simple and Advanced.
And these are just a few of the issues.
That said the system has promise to be the best RPG to have been made for BTU.
It just needs some work.
And if what they said on the KS is true, it may just get that work.
"So for now ATOW will wait until we have the MWD Beta out and feedback from the community on what was liked and what needs reworked. Once we have a good feel for MWD, we will revisit ATOW." Catalyst Games
-
"So for now ATOW will wait until we have the MWD Beta out and feedback from the community on what was liked and what needs reworked. Once we have a good feel for MWD, we will revisit ATOW." Catalyst Games
Well, it's relatively easy to point out what is wroing with ATOW -
The character creation system is workable, but badly laid out. You'd solve a lot of issue simply by improving the layout, and perhap putting in some better examples demonstarting things like Stage 3 academies, and Stage 4 repeating paths
Is there a loss of flavour? Sure - I can go with that. However, that isn't a killer and to be honest, I don't see any realistic chance of fixing it without taking up huge abouts of space and spreading such features over several books. You could perhaps add a page or table akin to sub-affiliations to cover various academies, but again - space, and a lack of room for true flavour would prove limiting.
Skill resolution - yes. The entire CA,SB,etc system is overly complex. The 2D6 works, but lacks granularity.
What would probabaly work is a revamp of the skill system to get rid of the CA, SB, etc complexity and a move to either 2D10 or 3D6/ 3D6 m,ight work best as you MIGHT be able to get away with simply adjusting the base TNs up a notch or two.
And combat is, again IMO, overly complex with too much attention given over to modifiers. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing....but it is complciated by the systems such as BAR which, on a scale of 1-10, really lacks the range for true differentiation and an Armour piercign system that, again IMO doesn't seem too intuituve. It leads to too much needless record keeping. I don't see any real way of fixing without a total rewrite unless you made certain adjustements such as bringing in different combat scales...personal, support, Mech, DropShip and WarShip...which I think could work but haven't really tetsed too much. Again, part of the problem here is that the game tries to cram too much in - the same rules for personal combat and mech combat, whciuh isn't bad but the scales of difference between them are simply too great to be easily managed. Convertign between the various systems simply adds needless compelxity and you also end up trying to work around fudges made for oen scale to integrate them into another.
As I said, what I would suggest is that a MW RPG should, ironically enough, forget about conversion for Mech scale combat, beyond suggesting a skills equivalency anyway. That's not to say forget about them, but there are (IMO) better ways to integrate the various levels of BT play than trying to use clunky conversion rules. And one of those ways is to acknowledge that man vs Mech combat requires the man to have specialist equipment. At which point, you can forget the conversion in favour of the equipment descriptions. e.g. a Detpack has an AntiArmour value of 1....a successful placement deal 1 point of mech scale damage and roll for a critical hit (correct placement in this case being in the actuator itself). Failure means the pack wasn't placed properly, or detonated with no damage. Meanwhile, your buddy with the heavy support laser can fire all he wnats but he isn't goign to do anything except create a nice light show because his weapons has an AntiArmour value of 0.
But as I said, that is just me and as seen before, there are those who will disgaree with this approach. But I will still be of the opinion that by and large, if a GM puts a team up against a Mech, he needs to at least provide a suit of BattleArmour, or another Mech - that is, do what every GM does and ensure the proper tools are available. Or, at least an escape route.
-
Well, it's relatively easy to point out what is wroing with ATOW -
The character creation system is workable, but badly laid out. You'd solve a lot of issue simply by improving the layout, and perhap putting in some better examples demonstarting things like Stage 3 academies, and Stage 4 repeating paths
Is there a loss of flavour? Sure - I can go with that. However, that isn't a killer and to be honest, I don't see any realistic chance of fixing it without taking up huge abouts of space and spreading such features over several books. You could perhaps add a page or table akin to sub-affiliations to cover various academies, but again - space, and a lack of room for true flavour would prove limiting.
Skill resolution - yes. The entire CA,SB,etc system is overly complex. The 2D6 works, but lacks granularity.
What would probabaly work is a revamp of the skill system to get rid of the CA, SB, etc complexity and a move to either 2D10 or 3D6/ 3D6 m,ight work best as you MIGHT be able to get away with simply adjusting the base TNs up a notch or two.
And combat is, again IMO, overly complex with too much attention given over to modifiers. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing....but it is complciated by the systems such as BAR which, on a scale of 1-10, really lacks the range for true differentiation and an Armour piercign system that, again IMO doesn't seem too intuituve. It leads to too much needless record keeping. I don't see any real way of fixing without a total rewrite unless you made certain adjustements such as bringing in different combat scales...personal, support, Mech, DropShip and WarShip...which I think could work but haven't really tetsed too much. Again, part of the problem here is that the game tries to cram too much in - the same rules for personal combat and mech combat, whciuh isn't bad but the scales of difference between them are simply too great to be easily managed. Convertign between the various systems simply adds needless compelxity and you also end up trying to work around fudges made for oen scale to integrate them into another.
As I said, what I would suggest is that a MW RPG should, ironically enough, forget about conversion for Mech scale combat, beyond suggesting a skills equivalency anyway. That's not to say forget about them, but there are (IMO) better ways to integrate the various levels of BT play than trying to use clunky conversion rules. And one of those ways is to acknowledge that man vs Mech combat requires the man to have specialist equipment. At which point, you can forget the conversion in favour of the equipment descriptions. e.g. a Detpack has an AntiArmour value of 1....a successful placement deal 1 point of mech scale damage and roll for a critical hit (correct placement in this case being in the actuator itself). Failure means the pack wasn't placed properly, or detonated with no damage. Meanwhile, your buddy with the heavy support laser can fire all he wnats but he isn't goign to do anything except create a nice light show because his weapons has an AntiArmour value of 0.
But as I said, that is just me and as seen before, there are those who will disgaree with this approach. But I will still be of the opinion that by and large, if a GM puts a team up against a Mech, he needs to at least provide a suit of BattleArmour, or another Mech - that is, do what every GM does and ensure the proper tools are available. Or, at least an escape route.
I see that a lot of your issues come down to space and trying to fit everything into one book, and I don't disagree.
But this brings up the issues of why do you have to fit everything into one book.
Truth be told AToW is the only version of the game that has tried to do this.
Every other edition has made splat books to cover the more indept parts of the game (Clans, Covert ops., Fringer society,etc.)
And don't get me started about the unbelievable amount of space wasted in the companion on edition conversion that could have been covered in a PDF.
Space is truly not an issues if you get rid of 4 page chapter stories, edition conversions, pages of info about the Innersphere that are available on the website for free.
Now on the skill side, they tried the 2d10 system and it was one of the most hated things about 3rd edition.
While I agree that the RPG needs to be able to stand on its own, it should never be completely divorced from the boardgame.
The boardgame is the lifeblood of the community and what the RPG is there to support.
Do I think they may have gone to far yes.
The issues with Mech vs. PC/NPC has more to do with the boardgames oversimplification of combat at this level then issues with the RPG.
The boardgames is designed to provide a quick resolution to Mech on Infantry combat so it doesn't bog-down play. And that is fine for the boardgames, but that doesn't translate well into a RPG.
Even in the boardgames rule it makes note that the Infantry marked off are not all dead, some are wounded, some ran off, etc.
The fact is you are right about if you hit a man with a 120mm APDS shell he is as good as dead, but the reality is that Tanks normally don't shoot them at infantry because the odds of hitting them are very low. There is a good reason that tanks have MG on them, it's to fight infantry. because these mega weapons you are talking about are sighted to hit vehicles/Mechs not one man running around the battlefield and it has been proven in all modern wars that vehicles are at a disadvantage against infantry in every arena except open terrain so MG were added for close support. Even a anti-infantry HE rounds for the 120mm is not 100% fatal in combat against Infantry. So the idea of Mech vs. PC/NPC equals dead PC/NPC is completely wrong.
One of the major misconceptions in the game is that Battlearmor is just better them Infantry.
The truth is that in most situations it's not.
A Infantry platoon can;
1. have as much if not more firepower then a Battlearmor Point for the point/c-bill cost. (support weapons, APC)
2. match Battlearmor in survivability when properly equipped for less point/c-bill cost.
The real advantages that Battlearmor has are its open field combat abilities, open filed mobility and it environmental adaptability. (Space, underwater, etc.)
-
I see that a lot of your issues come down to space and trying to fit everything into one book, and I don't disagree.
But this brings up the issues of why do you have to fit everything into one book.
You don't...but you have to fit in the basics, WITHOIUT making the book so big it puts off new players.
Unfortunately...I have to agree that the loss of "flavour" for aspects such as various academies were a valid target to be removed and I can't really think of anywhere suitable to put them. Housebooks of some sort would be ideal, but I doubt we are going to see CGL rush another set back into production anytime soon. The Combat Manuals? Maybe, but the mercs and Kurita are already out and while they MAY start up again, probably not anytime soon. A Sourcebook on academy life and the training of Clan sibkos? Might be interesting, but it soudns too much of a niche product. A PDF series simialr to Turning Points and the Dossiers? Doable....probably the most likely...but I can't see there being much interest.
Truth be told AToW is the only version of the game that has tried to do this.
Yeah - the other books were some of the best books ever written for BT, but as I understand it they also didn't sell too well.
But even so, you need to make room in one book for the core product. Which is one reason I think simplfying combat by dropping the various conversions rules is a good idea. You don't need pages of rules detailing mech vs person combat if the result is "If you're hit by anything, you die" and Mech vs mech combat can be simulated via "Use the Board game or treat as vehicular combat."
Space is truly not an issues if you get rid of 4 page chapter stories, edition conversions, pages of info about the Innersphere that are available on the website for free.
No - I think the stories are fine. It's a RPG. Giving players...especially new players who don't know the universe...a feel is important. Same for the background info. The fluff and lore is necessary. And yes - the conversions systems should not be in the rulebooks, but as a free to download pdf.
Now on the skill side, they tried the 2d10 system and it was one of the most hated things about 3rd edition.
While I agree that the RPG needs to be able to stand on its own, it should never be completely divorced from the boardgame.
Well then...you have a problem because 2D6 simply isn't a good choice for an RPG. It's barely a good choice for the board game. If 2D10 isn't good enough, then it has to be a 3D6 system.
The boardgames is designed to provide a quick resolution to Mech on Infantry combat so it doesn't bog-down play.
Which is fine, except the board game rules are themselves a fudge designed to make infantry just a little bit more than sitting ducks. Ninety nine percent of infantry units in universe wouldn't have a chance against a BattleMech because rifles, pistols et al don't do anything. Menawhile, in the board game, the rules give you conversion systems detailing how much damage an arrow will do.
Not complaining about the rules - they do provide a nice tactical variation, but there is simply no need for them in an RPG. It's like pitting a Street Samurai against a Tank. If he doesn't have an Anti tank Missile system, he isn't going to hang around for long.
Thing is, the question is if you want to pilot Mechs, you don't really need mech rules. We have the board game. Is there a need for the various conversions systems right down to the impact of a PPC on a human? No...the human goes splat should be enough. Auto death. Is that fair? No - so the PCs should never be put in a position where that happens...just as you wouldn't send a Street Samurai up against a tank with just a hand pistol.
The fact is you are right about if you hit a man with a 120mm APDS shell he is as good as dead, but the reality is that Tanks normally don't shoot them at infantry because the odds of hitting them are very low. There is a good reason that tanks have MG on them, it's to fight infantry.
If a weapon can damage Mech armour, then we're talking about a 120mm APDS situation. If you want the MG to be anti-infantry, then a simple - Mech Weapon X can be fired in an anti infantry mode, with a slower rate of fire and an extended burst duration. Treat as Weapon Y. - wil suffice
Again, no need to overcomplicate things or take up page space that could be better used on something else.
One of the major misconceptions in the game is that Battlearmor is just better them Infantry.
What a suit of BA can do for a PC is give him enough armour to survive mech scale weaponry at a personal level without the "survivability" of an inftary platoon which is "ten of your mates are casualties but the platoon survived".
Look - if you get down to it...yes. People would survive mechs scale blasts...when it misses. And sometimes it'll miss enough so you survive and not enough that you survive unscathed. Are there ways to emulate that? Sure. Area of effect and splash rules, alongside a simplified damage chart or something. Are such rules necessary? Desireable? To which the answer is...how complex are they? How much space do they take up? Are they enough of a priority to add? None of which however address the issue that conversions of the Mech combat board game aren't really needed for the RPG, especially if the RPG simply goes back and states the in universe reality - your pistol, shotgun and support lasers don't damage Mechs and you aren't going to survive a direct hit or even a near miss. If you go up against a Mech on foot, then you need THESE specific support weapons with (as an example) the AntiArmour(x) quirk.
As it is, the ingame combat rules are, IMO again, overly complex and agains badly laid out. Not jsut for Mechs but even some of the basics. There is potential in ATOW, I feel, but also that it requires a very large degree of rewriting and editing. There are some sections that could be removed as superfluous or unneeded, others that could be expanded.
-
I'm 100% with Victor_Shaw regarding the short stories. I don't think they have any place in a page-constrained RULE book.
I suspect providing the desired level of detail on individual Academies will run several pages at least. You could probably get away with a page or two if you limited it to just faction level details.
2d6 is the sine qua non of anything "BattleTech".
-
I'm 100% with Victor_Shaw regarding the short stories. I don't think they have any place in a page-constrained RULE book.
I suspect providing the desired level of detail on individual Academies will run several pages at least. You could probably get away with a page or two if you limited it to just faction level details.
2d6 is the sine qua non of anything "BattleTech".
The issues I have with the stories and the history sections is that the stories are unneeded and the history section is just an underdeveloped version of the "Innersphere at a Glance" booklet that comes in all Battletech boxsets. These could easily be provided as free PDFs on the website and accomplish the same goal.
If removed they would gain 46 pages within the book that they could use for game related materiel.
For a company that is forever complaining about lack of space to cover topics in their books, they seem to be just fine with wasting 40+ pages on non-game related material.
That is my issues with this.
-
I'm 100% with Victor_Shaw regarding the short stories. I don't think they have any place in a page-constrained RULE book.
And I would disagree.
Yes...the page count is constrained, but the stories serve a purpose. An important purpose IMO and one that justifies their inclusion more than in other rulebooks. This is a book where more than most, giving stories which help define the feel of the universe is important.
Its a judgement call, it I think the book better for it.
I suspect providing the desired level of detail on individual Academies will run several pages at least. You could probably get away with a page or two if you limited it to just faction level details.
Yes, which is why I think dropping the info was a hood choice. It's missed, but not essential.
2d6 is the sine qua non of anything "BattleTech".
I can see why you'd say that, but I disagree. I don't see CGL changing it, but I believe it would be a better RPG game with a more granulated approach allowed by a 3D6 or 2D10 system.
-
The issues I have with the stories and the history sections is that the stories are unneeded and the history section is just an underdeveloped version of the "Innersphere at a Glance" booklet that comes in all Battletech boxsets. These could easily be provided as free PDFs on the website and accomplish the same goal.
If removed they would gain 46 pages within the book that they could use for game related materiel.
For a company that is forever complaining about lack of space to cover topics in their books, they seem to be just fine with wasting 40+ pages on non-game related material.
That is my issues with this.
The trouble is whether it is wasted or not.
CGL aren't going to provide a campaign box set, and if you don't include campaign and background information, all you have is a clunky system that acts as an adjunct to the game. You could get away without a lot of world detail in D&D, but something like ATOW needs it.
And no...making it a free isn't a viable substitute. That's adding an unnecessary barrier to entry, especially since choosing a faction is kinda important during character creation.
Marketing and gameplay reasons therefore dictate that the ATOW book include enough background material to get going and to create s character.
You could argue that it takes up 46 pages and could be done in less.
Maybe....but character creation takes up 53, with another 30 on traits, and almost 20 on skills.
Not all of that is "wasted" but the game does waste space on unnecessary aspects.
No Clan character, for example, should ever start play with a BloodName. Thats a major reward, a driving goal for any and all Clan players...and it should not be earned during character creation.
That's about three pages that could be reclaimed just from that.
Not to mention the space saved with a better layout and almost 30 that could be dropped from the "tactical combat" section if combat was refocussed to PC vs NPC combat.
If there is one thing the book could use, it would be an intro scenario.
-
And I would disagree.
Yes...the page count is constrained, but the stories serve a purpose. An important purpose IMO and one that justifies their inclusion more than in other rulebooks. This is a book where more than most, giving stories which help define the feel of the universe is important.
Its a judgement call, it I think the book better for it.
Yes, which is why I think dropping the info was a hood choice. It's missed, but not essential.
I can see why you'd say that, but I disagree. I don't see CGL changing it, but I believe it would be a better RPG game with a more granulated approach allowed by a 3D6 or 2D10 system.
And I think that if you asked around little or no one has read those stories out of anything but boredom. The thing is no one I know in my local community has ever read them (I've asked) and I have only glanced at them when I had nothing else to do at my grandma's house because she didn't have internet. They server very little or any purpose to the RPG community.
The fact is most players for this RPG come from the Battletech community and really don't need a refresher on the BTU.
I don't get your stance on this you are find with them removing game based flavor from the game but a diametrically opposed to them removing random stories from the corebook which is not a novella. You keep claiming that flavor mechanics that enhance the PCs are not essential, but flavor stories that server no function to the game are.
As for the dice it's not going to change, as I said they tried it before and almost had a riot on their hands.
-
The trouble is whether it is wasted or not.
CGL aren't going to provide a campaign box set, and if you don't include campaign and background information, all you have is a clunky system that acts as an adjunct to the game. You could get away without a lot of world detail in D&D, but something like ATOW needs it.
And no...making it a free isn't a viable substitute. That's adding an unnecessary barrier to entry, especially since choosing a faction is kinda important during character creation.
Marketing and gameplay reasons therefore dictate that the ATOW book include enough background material to get going and to create s character.
You could argue that it takes up 46 pages and could be done in less.
Maybe....but character creation takes up 53, with another 30 on traits, and almost 20 on skills.
Not all of that is "wasted" but the game does waste space on unnecessary aspects.
No Clan character, for example, should ever start play with a BloodName. Thats a major reward, a driving goal for any and all Clan players...and it should not be earned during character creation.
That's about three pages that could be reclaimed just from that.
Not to mention the space saved with a better layout and almost 30 that could be dropped from the "tactical combat" section if combat was refocussed to PC vs NPC combat.
If there is one thing the book could use, it would be an intro scenario.
You seem to be missing the point that CGL are already providing it in the Core boxset for the Battletech boardgame.
And unlike D&D you are not going to get many or any players just picking up AToW and playing it without being familiar with the BTU.
"Maybe....but character creation takes up 53, with another 30 on traits, and almost 20 on skills. Not all of that is "wasted" but the game does waste space on unnecessary aspects."
So game mechanics are wasted space but, non-game mechanic stories are essential?
After this statement I am done with this argument.
It is clear that you think stories are more important they game mechanics in a RPG so we will leave it at that.
Maybe MW:D will work for you then.
-
You seem to be missing the point that CGL are already providing it in the Core boxset for the Battletech boardgame.
You make the assumption everyone buyinh ATOW will own tbd board game. If you want ATOW to be a successful RPG, you cannot make that assumption. If you want CGL to limit its market to existing BT players, then they may as well do nothing.
CGL presumably want ATOW to be successful. That means it has to be standalone.
So game mechanics are wasted space but, non-game mechanic stories are essential?
Game mechanics that are convoluted, duplicated or unnecessary are a waste of space. If CGL wants players to engage in Mech to Mech combat, it already has a game for that. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel.
In other words...it doesn't need to spend 30 pages on vehicular combat. Shadowrun does it in about ten.
. It is clear that you think stories are more important they game mechanics in a RPG so we will leave it at that.
No. Stories are important because in what has you be a self contained RPG, they provide valuable world info. If you were you cut such info, then you end up with an RPG that is nothing but an adjunct to the board game.
Is there stuff that should be cut? Sure. The lifepath system for one. A huge amount of space with no major advantage over other creation systems.
The tactical combat system. The game doesn't need to spend 20 or 30 pages trying to bring the board game into the RPG. It needs a vehicular combat system suitable for an RPG...not an adjunct to the board game. I get that the authors are trying to split the RPG away from that point, but I don't think they've succeeded.
ATOW has a good framework...but it still needs a lot of work.
-
You make the assumption everyone buyinh ATOW will own tbd board game. If you want ATOW to be a successful RPG, you cannot make that assumption. If you want CGL to limit its market to existing BT players, then they may as well do nothing.
CGL presumably want ATOW to be successful. That means it has to be standalone.
Game mechanics that are convoluted, duplicated or unnecessary are a waste of space. If CGL wants players to engage in Mech to Mech combat, it already has a game for that. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel.
In other words...it doesn't need to spend 30 pages on vehicular combat. Shadowrun does it in about ten.
No. Stories are important because in what has you be a self contained RPG, they provide valuable world info. If you were you cut such info, then you end up with an RPG that is nothing but an adjunct to the board game.
Is there stuff that should be cut? Sure. The lifepath system for one. A huge amount of space with no major advantage over other creation systems.
The tactical combat system. The game doesn't need to spend 20 or 30 pages trying to bring the board game into the RPG. It needs a vehicular combat system suitable for an RPG...not an adjunct to the board game. I get that the authors are trying to split the RPG away from that point, but I don't think they've succeeded.
ATOW has a good framework...but it still needs a lot of work.
please don't bring up that train-wreck of a system Shadowrun, it does nothing to strengthen your position, and in fact does more to hurt it.
-
please don't bring up that train-wreck of a system Shadowrun, it does nothing to strengthen your position, and in fact does more to hurt it.
I'm pointing out that RPGs don't need to spend so many pages on certain features, whether or not they are game mechanics.
ATOWs character creation system can be fun, but ultimately the lifepath system is too complex, and too space hungry.
A better system would be...start with x XPs, spend x on a faction and sub faction, spend y on era based skills and you have x to spend on creation.
The combat system takes up too much space. You could probably lose a good part of it through simplification and removal of tbe tactical combat section.
Skill resolution should be tidied. Even if you keep the 2D6 system, the CA and SA and so on takes up more space thsn it is worth.
-
*snip*
Is there stuff that should be cut? Sure. The lifepath system for one. A huge amount of space with no major advantage over other creation systems.
*snip*
My turn to disagree. Like it or not, AToW IS an adjunct to the board game, and the lifepath system is one way to get the wargaming player base to end up with well rounded characters. If you hand a group of players who have been doing nothing but min-maxing the 'mech construction rules a purely (or even just more than we have) point based system, what kind of characters do you think they'll build?
-
I agree, I like the life path system, because I think it does create more interesting characters with flaws and random skills a real person would have picked up that are useful but not pertain to their primary job. The issue is how time consuming using it is, though I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the reason for that is just how many skills and skill levels there are and their interactions with skill type and attributes. It means there's a LOT to add up.
Regarding combat, I don't see any specific issues with it, both personal and vehicular combat work just fine, though it can be a bit confusingly worded in spots. Granted the level of granularity with stuff like AP/BD might not be necessary, but Battletech as a whole has always had a lot of moving parts (perhaps too many, looking at you box of doom), and that carries over into AToW.
-
The thing that pure role players tend to forget is that in the final stretch, AToW is "the Battletech RPG", and most PC are going to be Mechwarriors, Aerospace Pilots, or Elementals. So the game has to work towards that goal. And has to keep the feeling that your is character the one represented being in that game. To that end the systems have to be able to work together.
The reason that the 2d10 of 3rd edition failed and started an uproar was due to its inability to achieve this connection. It left players feeling a disconnect between Battletech and the RPG as if they did not belong in the same universe. This was also the case with the splitting of the Gunnery skill into 3 separate skills, while this made sense from a RPG/real world stance, it did not fit the feel of Battletech universe as it had always only had one.
As for new players to the RPG, Battletech is a niche game, after the KS we now know its a large niche, but it's still a niche.
Mechwarrior/AToW is a niche within that niche, no matter how much you may want it to be otherwise the polls prove that a for the most part the community is here to play Battletech. While there is a following for Mechwarrior it is from within that community and the idea that you are going to get none battletech players to play the RPG by making it a separate game is just wrong.
Your AToW player base is going to came from your Battletech player base either from players who already love the universe and want to role play in it or from new players that are introduced to the universe by the first group of players. No gamer is going to pick-up AToW or any of the other version of Mechwarrior and say to him/herself "Oh look at this game about giant robots in a universe I have never hear of before, I think I'm going to play it" stories and history in the book or not. You are going to get your players from the Battletech community, and that's where Mechwarrior: Destiny comes in for players that want a simpler RPG to go with their already crunchy boardgame. And AToW is for the gamers that want crunch in their RPG also.
From the current results of the RPG poll we know that
AToW is currently the most played version of the RPG
Mechwarrior: Destiny appears to only be interesting to Battletech players that are not currently playing other versions of the RPG.
Mechwarrior 3rd (the 2d10 one) has no interest at all among the Battletech RPG community
While 1st and 2nd which run even closer to the board game mechanics both still have a small following.
What I get from this is AToW has enough of a following that a revision could be done. ;D
Mechwarrior: Destiny will accomplish its goal of being a gateway to roleplaying for the battletech universe. :)
1st and 2nd will always have some hold outs. :thumbsup:
And 3rd was the complete failure that everyone thought it was. :-\
All that said for all the work that needs to be done to make AToW the great game it can be.
Scraping core mechanics and divorcing it from Battletech to draw in some non-existent phantom players base is not the way to go.
To many other RPG companies have try this in the last few years and almost destroyed their games in the process.
-
My turn to disagree. Like it or not, AToW IS an adjunct to the board game, and the lifepath system is one way to get the wargaming player base to end up with well rounded characters.
There is "adjunct" and there is "adjunct". If all you need is a character with gunnery skills, then you don't need an RPG.
The tactical combat system in the RPG tries too hard to replicate what does not need to be replicated - the board game. While that does have value, it does not have enough value to be part of the core RPG ruleset. Instead, a streamlined vehicle combat system should have been used. One that does not require 20 or 30 pages.
As for the lifepath system...other RPGs also provide for "well rounded" characters and do so without the complexity or page count. I like the lifepath system...but it took me several run throughs to get a grip to it and even now, there are aspects which I am not comfortable with. As has been stated here, the apparent complexity and size is offputting to new players.
If you hand a group of players who have been doing nothing but min-maxing the 'mech construction rules a purely (or even just more than we have) point based system, what kind of characters do you think they'll build?
Characters that they like. Ultimately, character creation rules can encourage well rounded characters, but min-maxxers will usually fidn a way. And - if that is what they like - why should the designers care?
In the case of ATOW, the character creation rules could encourage "well roundedness" by requiring players to choose a faction, sub faction and era before character creation begins, and also through the requirement of limiting starting skills levels, as well as requiring both primary and secondary skillsets.
-
The thing that pure role players tend to forget is that in the final stretch, AToW is "the Battletech RPG", and most PC are going to be Mechwarriors, Aerospace Pilots, or Elementals.
No...but that is a flaw. If all you are doing is creating characters for use in a Mech, then you don't need an RPG. You need the boxed gamer and simply increase gunnery skills every four kills.
The key question therefore is - should the MW RPG be an RPG, or should it be the Mechwarrior fleshout kit?
IMO, it should be an RPG and work towards that goal and not simply be a way to create a Mechwarrior with just a few extra skills. CGL, FASA and FanPro made good strides toward this goal but ultimately, I think they have been handicapped by thinking as you have - that the game needs to be an adjunct of the tabletop game rather than a game in and of its own right. And because of this, the RPG has suffered...each versions does somethings right, but each also gets some stuff wrong.
As for new players to the RPG, Battletech is a niche game, after the KS we now know its a large niche, but it's still a niche.
Which doesn't mean you can't work to expand that niche. The BTU is a great universe, but if you only design the RPG to be a side effect of the board game, there is no point to the RPG. You may as well save the effort and tell people to use the RIFTS system, or Savage Worlds, or TORG, simply switching over to the board game during combat sessions. Start each player off with a base skills of 5 or 6, have the player skill level act as a bonus to succeed and keep track of in game XP...say, 1 XP per critical success, 3 XP for a critical failure, 5XP for an assist and 15XP for a solo kill. Spend ten times the skill level to improve it by one.
-
The tactical combat system doesn't really do that, though.
For actual mech on mech combat (or combat vehicles or whatever) you DO use the tabletop rules, you can just use your RPG skills once you convert them (though the fact you have to convert them is a bit annoying. Having modifiers work the opposite way between TT and AToW can be a bit confusing to newer players), and your character's HP rather than the generic 6 hits and you're dead Though I WOULD like to see better rules for how to use stuff like sensor operations (the TO rules for sensor checks don't really work well with skill levels)
The ACTUAL tactical combat section (not the Tactical combat addendum chapter), focuses on personal combat which the tabletop doesn't really handle since infantry in tabletop is at the platoon level on a large battlefield so there's scaling issues that pretty much require new rules. The Tactical combat addendum is what brings mechs and vehicles into the personal scale, but that still does have to be there if you want to actually have a squad of plucky heros trying to outrun a mech. and it's not really that complicated: mech scale weapons outright kill people, but only infantry support weapons give people a chance at harming a mech. Maybe it could be streamlined to have a table of what weapons can actually harm a mech (which is a short list) and what mech scale weapons aren't an instakill against everyone (pretty sure there aren't any), but that's not an actual rules change, and frankly a rules change isn't needed not needed because what should happen already does, it's just incredibly verbose in how it says that.
The rules are sound, they work well, they just aren't presented very well (see: making players figure it out themselves vs just saying, "There's no situation where this is survivable")
===
As for a mechwarrior fleshout kit. I would love a small publication whose only aim is to bring a bit of granularity to mechwarriors on the battlefield, but that's definitely not the main point of an RPG. The point of AToW is to allow you to also handle what goes on outside the cockpit, so I don't think they need be exclusive products.
-
The tactical combat system in the RPG tries too hard to replicate what does not need to be replicated - the board game. While that does have value, it does not have enough value to be part of the core RPG ruleset. Instead, a streamlined vehicle combat system should have been used. One that does not require 20 or 30 pages.
I think you're right that it could have been shorter, but I think a clear link to the board game is necessary.
As for the lifepath system...other RPGs also provide for "well rounded" characters and do so without the complexity or page count. I like the lifepath system...but it took me several run throughs to get a grip to it and even now, there are aspects which I am not comfortable with. As has been stated here, the apparent complexity and size is offputting to new players.
It's less complex than 3rd edition (I know that's a low bar). The thing I like most about it is that characters come out well rounded organically in a way that just "feels right" for BattleTech.
Characters that they like. Ultimately, character creation rules can encourage well rounded characters, but min-maxxers will usually fidn a way. And - if that is what they like - why should the designers care?
Because a bunch of 0 gunners in assault 'mechs limits the GM's room to maneuver, and the GM has just as much right to fun as the players.
In the case of ATOW, the character creation rules could encourage "well roundedness" by requiring players to choose a faction, sub faction and era before character creation begins, and also through the requirement of limiting starting skills levels, as well as requiring both primary and secondary skillsets.
As I said above, the existing rules make this organic. You certainly could place some obviously arbitrary limits on starting characters, but that's less elegant in my opinion.
-
I think you're right that it could have been shorter, but I think a clear link to the board game is necessary.
I'm not saying that there needs to be no link to the board game, but the manner in they did so was overly complex and largely unnecessary. As an RPG, vehicular combat rules are a necessity but they tried to replicate the complexity of a board game within the strictures of an RPG and it doesn't work. It's fitting a square peg into a round hole. There are ways to do it, but the simplest way is to add a Gunnery and piloting skills and then tell players to use the board game - OK, you need a few more skills than that.
What the RPG needs is a clear system of RPG based vehicular combat. But the tactical section tries to bring the entire RPG game into total War or vice versa if you prefer. It keep talking about squads and cohesion...elements which are not really suited or necessary for an RPG.
It's less complex than 3rd edition (I know that's a low bar). The thing I like most about it is that characters come out well rounded organically in a way that just "feels right" for BattleTech.
Maybe so, but the truth remains that it takes up a huge amount of space and there are other character creation methods that work just as well.
Because a bunch of 0 gunners in assault 'mechs limits the GM's room to maneuver, and the GM has just as much right to fun as the players.
And in an RPG scenario, those players will find that their "0 gunners" will haves ever restrictions on what they can do and how they can contribute and there are other scenarios a GM can engage with which would downplay the impact of a 0 gunner. But ultimately, it comes down to the type of campaign the players and GM and starting with a 0 gunner in ATOW requires a Level 7 gunnery skill to bring the TN down that far. Quite an investment, though a maximum set during character creation would have been a better solution.
In short, if the GM is happy with a bunch of zero gunners, then fair play to him,
-
No...but that is a flaw. If all you are doing is creating characters for use in a Mech, then you don't need an RPG. You need the boxed gamer and simply increase gunnery skills every four kills.
That is not a flaw, that is just a fact of the BTU.
AToW handles non-military PCs just as well, but when you have a game universe revolving around giant robots, players are going to want to play said giant robot pilots and they are going to want to play them like the game that the BTU is based off of. That's just how it is, and if that doesn't fit your style of play I'm sorry but you can't expect everyone else to change.
The key question therefore is - should the MW RPG be an RPG, or should it be the Mechwarrior fleshout kit?
IMO, it should be an RPG and work towards that goal and not simply be a way to create a Mechwarrior with just a few extra skills. CGL, FASA and FanPro made good strides toward this goal but ultimately, I think they have been handicapped by thinking as you have - that the game needs to be an adjunct of the tabletop game rather than a game in and of its own right. And because of this, the RPG has suffered...each versions does somethings right, but each also gets some stuff wrong.
No, the question is does the RPG have to remove itself from the game that most of its players play. And the answer to that is no. Again you may wish that was not the case but it is. As I stated above, "Your AToW player base is going to came from your Battletech player base either from players who already love the universe and want to role play in it or from new players that are introduced to the universe by the first group of players." so treating the Boardgame as if it doesn't existed is not going to get you more players it is just going to drive away the players you have. You can talk about how removing the RPG from its connection to the boardgame will bring in new player all you want, but the hard truth is you are wrong. As I said before every game that has tried to go after those phantom players groups have failed to find them and alienated their existing players causing a downturn in sales.
Which doesn't mean you can't work to expand that niche. The BTU is a great universe, but if you only design the RPG to be a side effect of the board game, there is no point to the RPG. You may as well save the effort and tell people to use the RIFTS system, or Savage Worlds, or TORG, simply switching over to the board game during combat sessions. Start each player off with a base skills of 5 or 6, have the player skill level act as a bonus to succeed and keep track of in game XP...say, 1 XP per critical success, 3 XP for a critical failure, 5XP for an assist and 15XP for a solo kill. Spend ten times the skill level to improve it by one.
CGL is doing just what it needs to expand that niche, they are driving the sales of the Battletech boardgame. Again the RPG wither you like it or not is a side product. While I would love for it to grow, the only way that is going to happen is for CGL to expand the Battletech boardgame community and get some of them to pick-up the RPG. They will not bring in more players from the RPG, it just isn't going to happen. You seem to want a BTU RPG that is all RPG and ignores the rest of the CGL products, well that is never going to happen so anymore arguing its a waste of time.
The only thing I can say from here is try Mechwarrior: Destiny when it comes out, if you are a member of the KS you will get to Beta it for free, if not I think they said it will be out by late December or early January. It is going to be a more streamline version of the rule and even have a quick mech combat system that you may like. Other then that I don't know what to tell you.
-
That is not a flaw, that is just a fact of the BTU.
AToW handles non-military PCs just as well, but when you have a game universe revolving around giant robots, players are going to want to play said giant robot pilots and they are going to want to play them like the game that the BTU is based off of. That's just how it is, and if that doesn't fit your style of play I'm sorry but you can't expect everyone else to change.
And as I said, if all you want from an RPG is the ability to pilot mechs, then there is the board game. if you want an actual RPG game, however, then the rules cannot and should not revolve around Mechs but need to allow for different scenarios and styles of play.
Being blunt, if all the RPG needs to do is cater to players who want to play said giant robot pilots, then an RPG is an unnecessary extravagance and should not be written at all. The existing Table top game gives players that experience and a compact Experience system to allow for growth in said skills can be provided in a paragraph.
As I stated above, "Your AToW player base is going to came from your Battletech player base either from players who already love the universe and want to role play in it or from new players that are introduced to the universe by the first group of players."
Which is an unnecessary and foolish restriction that artificially limits the market and restricts the ability of the game to grow. That you think this is how the game is does not mean that an RPG needs cater to such a select group. The RPG should be developed with an eye to expanding the player base, not cater to a niche group of a niche group. that doesn't mean you ignore the board game, but it does mean that you don't make assumptions. That the RPG has been developed as an adjunct to the board game is, IMO, a big reason why the various versions have failed. RPGs have different needs and expectations from a board game and trying to shoehorn one into the other isn't a good idea.
To keep things short...ATOW should be developed as an RPG first, and should not be based around the assumption that the players own or are even familiar with the board game. It shouldn't ignore the board game, it shouldn't ignore 'Mech based combat, but it also shouldn't be centred around it nor should it cover squad based rules or the like. The system as is is flawed because it tries to do that. That isn't to say ATOW doesn't have its good points - it does - but the flaws of the system often overshadow the good.
As I said before every game that has tried to go after those phantom players groups have failed to find them and alienated their existing players causing a downturn in sales
Every BT RPG system to date has relied upon integration with the board game to the degree that the core rules have suffered. Some systems work better than others. And, at the end of the day, it is something that doesn't really work that well. There are better ways to integrate the board game.....and one of those is to simply USE the board game with the board game rules and not worry about trying to engage in clunky conversion or rewriting the mechanics.
The only thing I can say from here is try Mechwarrior: Destiny when it comes out, if you are a member of the KS you will get to Beta it for free, if not I think they said it will be out by late December or early January. It is going to be a more streamline version of the rule and even have a quick mech combat system that you may like. Other then that I don't know what to tell you.
Unless they change the system a lot, I have no interest in Destiny.
-
You guys are just restating your positions repeatedly at this point. I don't think either of you will change their mind.
-
You guys are just restating your positions repeatedly at this point. I don't think either of you will change their mind.
Yeah, that's why I'm done with this.
-
*snip*
Every BT RPG system to date has relied upon integration with the board game to the degree that the core rules have suffered.
*snip*
Paul's not wrong, but this particular point is completely disproved by 3rd edition (and not entirely supported by any of the others).
-
Yeah, that's why I'm done with this.
Very true, but I have to lean with Victor on this. I think ATOW is very salvageable. Just need some streamlining.
-
Streamlining/reorganization, yes. A new edition? I don't think so.
-
I wholeheartedly agree.
-
I wholeheartedly agree.
I have said this before and I will say it again.
"Streamlining" is my trigger word these days.
Every company (Including CGL(Shadowrun 6th)) that starts with the goal of the "S" word has destroyed the game they are trying to fix.
It has become a catch word for dumbing down a game for the general market and/or changing rules or setting for a different demographic.
Now clarification, and simplification used in a surgical way to fix specific issues would be a better way to say it.
-
I can see why that would be a trigger for you, but I don't see that level of danger until I hear the words "new edition". The good news is other threads have stated Destiny will be "alongside" AToW, and that works for me.
-
The tactical combat system doesn't really do that, though.
For actual mech on mech combat (or combat vehicles or whatever) you DO use the tabletop rules, you can just use your RPG skills once you convert them (though the fact you have to convert them is a bit annoying. Having modifiers work the opposite way between TT and AToW can be a bit confusing to newer players), and your character's HP rather than the generic 6 hits and you're dead Though I WOULD like to see better rules for how to use stuff like sensor operations (the TO rules for sensor checks don't really work well with skill levels)
I see Sensor Ops. as a battletech scouting mini-game.
The truth is that once engaged in the heat of combat Sensor Ops. is not all that useful and you rely more on use your gunnery and piloting skill to carry you through.
IMHO, Sensor Ops. is about being able to use your sensors to find the enemy while avoiding being found yourself, either by using it in a double blind system or just as a roll your GM makes you roll during the RPG session.
Sensor Ops. Works well with the double blind sensor rule from Tactical Operations.
Using the Ranges and Modifiers presented and the Sensor Ops. skill.
-
I would happily pay for and buy multiple copies of a revised ATOW 2E, with all the errata, clarifications, and highly requested features/streamlining that would follow an open beta period for feedback. ATOW is a good system, but it can be made better and easier to use without making a complete new edition.
-
I'm only looking at this from the perspective of "Games i could teach new groups to", but AToW desperately needs to be edited with clarity in mind more than any rules need to be changed for me. Much of the book assumes you understand when the text is important and when it's just going over edge cases, and almost every table leans heavily on confusing abbreviations. the inset text blocks also tended to confuse anyone reading more than help.
I've had to explain how everything works a number of times the few groups i felt confident enough to get them to try the game not because the system is particularly prickly but because the descriptions are so friggin' pendantic they confuse people.
A short reminder in how to be concise and when to make it easy to tell where important rules are rather than wrapping everything in a huge text block would be useful for the editorial guy on the next version. Along with a few swipes over the head with a newspaper when they start explaining why they did it. The rules themselves aren't really the issue in my experience.
-
As I stated over on the MW:D thread the only thing I found redeeming in the book was the new Mech-combat system.
I think it would work well with some modifications as a RPG based vehicle combat system for AToW.
It would also work well as an optional damage system for Alpha Strike, to handle the issues of lost flavor when mechs are converted to AS.
-
As to the out-of-print issues.
As I had said earlier according to CGL they are waiting for the results of MW:D before they proceed with AToW.
They wanted to get an idea of what people liked and didn't like before they try to tackle this one.
So we are looking at, at least 2020 before anything goes forward on AToW and wither it will just be a reprint with errata and minor changes or they take it further then that.
Sorry to say till then the PDF is all there is going to be.
-
snip
Thanks for sharing that info; based on that it looks like MW Destiny is going to be my MW RPG for the foreseeable future (I am cool with that, as long as I can get people playing!). :)
-
Thanks for sharing that info; based on that it looks like MW Destiny is going to be my MW RPG for the foreseeable future (I am cool with that, as long as I can get people playing!). :)
Let's hope...my Battletech/Alpha Strike group is creating characters this weekend.
-
As I had said earlier according to CGL they are waiting for the results of MW:D before they proceed with AToW.
Hm, I explicitly remember them saying that MW:D was not supposed to supersede AToW, but offer a different option. That was during the KickStarter. Where again did you hear your version of the story?
-
Hm, I explicitly remember them saying that MW:D was not supposed to supersede AToW, but offer a different option. That was during the KickStarter. Where again did you hear your version of the story?
Direct quote from CGL in response to my question about the future of AToW.
"So for now ATOW will wait until we have the MWD Beta out and feedback from the community on what was liked and what needs reworked. Once we have a good feel for MWD, we will revisit ATOW." Catalyst Game
-
I will restrain from further comments about a revised or 2E of ATOW RPG until:
A-The MWD Beta test is over.
B-ATOW RPG is available as a POD option.
-
I will say one thing. Sometimes I do wish for additional detail in ATOW. Of course, now that I've researched this, I'm wondering if its a case for errata...
For instance, the Neural Lash has lower availability and legality ratings as the Neural Whip, the same damage, longer reach, uses less energy, and is 250 c-bills cheaper, and is 1/3rd of the weight. Both have "Do not add STR Damage" listed.
So why would you ever take the whip?
Of course, 3rd edition tells us that the whip has additional properties when used to torture someone. It also has an incapacitating attack which doesn't seem to have translated to ATOW (perhaps errata?)
So while I don't think ATOW needs too many more details, I can certainly understand why some people do.
-
There are a number of items in the equipment section that I am reasonably certain something got left out, some stats were put in the wrong place a long time ago without being fixed, or are otherwise in serious need of revision to make useful.
-
So I figured it would be time to start coming up with what we want to see from A Time of War 2nd edition in more then just general terms.
While I have done a lot of work on my schools conversion, I still see it as a stop-gap maneuver till such time as we get a AToW 2nd edition.
I have some ideas that I think could work for AToW 2nd edition.
1. The system needs to have its point totals trimmed down, 5,000 points is to much.
2. They need to abandon the battletech direct integration, and go for something more inline with the Mech-combat system from MW:D.
3. I think that attributes/skills/traits should be separated point pools like the old priority systems.
4. My feelings on the lack of depth in AToW characters are well know so I will avoid going over it again.
this is just some ideas I have.
-
If there were another edition I would hope that;
1) The individual/platoon combat be handled better. More troopers should mean more damage, not less.
2) That vehicles be 100% legal in TW.
3) Include Black Powder weapons. It's a tech gap that bugs me. We go from melee weapons and bows and arrows to Gatling guns. Where's the muskets?
4) Include ancient siege weapons. If we're going to have formations of archers and such, why not give them some support weapons like catapults, Hwacha, and cannons?
-
4) Include ancient siege weapons. If we're going to have formations of archers and such, why not give them some support weapons like catapults, Hwacha, and cannons?
We have stats for both the Catapult and the Hwacha, as well as all sorts of cannons.
-
We have stats for both the Catapult and the Hwacha, as well as all sorts of cannons.
We do? :o Where? :-\ I can't find them. :'(
-
Take everything Kit says with a grain of salt (or two)… ::)
-
Well...my popcorn could use more salt.
-
We do? :o Where? :-\ I can't find them. :'(
Catapult (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/479/catapult-cplt-c1-jenny-butterbee), Hwacha (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4350/hwacha-urban-combat-vehicle-hw1), bunch of cannons (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/217189/BattleTech-BattleMech-Manual?src=hottest_filtered).
-
Catapult (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/479/catapult-cplt-c1-jenny-butterbee), Hwacha (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4350/hwacha-urban-combat-vehicle-hw1), bunch of cannons (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/217189/BattleTech-BattleMech-Manual?src=hottest_filtered).
I think he was referring to the ancient artillery pieces not the mechs.
-
I think he was referring to the ancient artillery pieces not the mechs.
Yeah, the response was a joke. Most of Kit's posts are.
-
3) Include Black Powder weapons. It's a tech gap that bugs me. We go from melee weapons and bows and arrows to Gatling guns. Where's the muskets?
I believe the AToW Companion has rules for archaic weapons. If not there, it's somewhere.
Yeah, the response was a joke. Most of Kit's posts are.
Only 15-20% of them.
-
I believe the AToW Companion has rules for archaic weapons. If not there, it's somewhere.
Sorry. I'm not finding them. All I see are:
Archaic Sword
Zweihander Sword
Jousting Lance
Whip
Primitive Bow
Vintage Pistol (Automatic)
Vintage Assault Rifle
Vintage Machine Gun
Vintage Minigun
Vintage Gatling Gun
Wire-Guided Missile Launcher
There are no earlier fire arms like Flintlocks and Muskets. There's also no siege weapons such as catapults,Hwatchas, volley guns, or cannons. I'm not counting Rifle Cannons as they're more modern. I'm also not counting the Make-shift Rifle. Even firearms as old as the Arquebus are quality production weapons that took skill to produce.
I don't know about stats for each and every type of firearm and siege weapon but a couple examples would be nice. Maybe rules to alter them by era or something? And I know it's weird to ask about Black Powder weapons and older siege weapons but if we can have platoons of archers why not platoons of Musketteers with volleyguns and cannon for support weapons?
-
Because theres maybe 5 people on the planet who want this? And youre 20% of that group.
-
That could be true. But you've got to admit going from crossbow to gatling gun leaves a ginormous technolocal gap.
-
Theres another gap between a sword and a stone axe. Maybe ATOW should NOT be a simulation. Maybe at some point, something is irrelevant.
-
*nod*
If you're looking to re-enact the Napoleonic Wars, the 100 Years War, or any other ancient historical battle that AToW and Battletech were never designed to let you re-enact maybe another system is in order.
And just to nip a potential counter argument in the bud there is zero indication that the tech loss on any world anywhere actually got bad enough that they had to re-invent flint lock muskets or any of the other items supposedly missing from AToW. Even the most backwater podunk planet seems to more than able to make any number of weapons and armors that'd make such things undeniably insane to try and re-introduce.
-
Theres another gap between a sword and a stone axe. Maybe ATOW should NOT be a simulation. Maybe at some point, something is irrelevant.
I think Club (Club/Improvised) could work for stone axe. I also never said AToW should be a simulation. And why shouldn't black powder weapons be irrelevant when we've got swords and arrows?
*nod*
If you're looking to re-enact the Napoleonic Wars, the 100 Years War, or any other ancient historical battle that AToW and Battletech were never designed to let you re-enact maybe another system is in order.
Who said anything about re-enacting some ancient war? And why is it every time ancient weapons are mentioned the replies go straight to AToW and BT were never designed for re-enact those battles. Use another system? Also does anyone realize how odd being told that is considering the wide variety of infantry platoons we can create with the wide variety of ancient weapons and armor AToW and BT have now? ???
And just to nip a potential counter argument in the bud there is zero indication that the tech loss on any world anywhere actually got bad enough that they had to re-invent flint lock muskets or any of the other items supposedly missing from AToW. Even the most backwater podunk planet seems to more than able to make any number of weapons and armors that'd make such things undeniably insane to try and re-introduce.
Why does the use of flint lock muskets and other missing weapons have to indicate a technological decline? There's all kinds of reasons for them to exist. Tech decline is just one of them.
And just for fun the muzzle loading black powder rifle doesn't have to be "ancient". It could be one of those new battery powered versions. Although I suppose "modern" BT versions would use power packs instead of 9 volt batteries.
-
I think Club (Club/Improvised) could work for stone axe. I also never said AToW should be a simulation. And why shouldn't black powder weapons be irrelevant when we've got swords and arrows?
Who said anything about re-enacting some ancient war? And why is it every time ancient weapons are mentioned the replies go straight to AToW and BT were never designed for re-enact those battles. Use another system? Also does anyone realize how odd being told that is considering the wide variety of infantry platoons we can create with the wide variety of ancient weapons and armor AToW and BT have now? ???
Why does the use of flint lock muskets and other missing weapons have to indicate a technological decline? There's all kinds of reasons for them to exist. Tech decline is just one of them.
And just for fun the muzzle loading black powder rifle doesn't have to be "ancient". It could be one of those new battery powered versions. Although I suppose "modern" BT versions would use power packs instead of 9 volt batteries.
Battletech has never been a full simulation that covers all possibilities and asking it to do so is frankly a disservice and the only reason to include them is because you want to re-enact those past conflicts.
There is zero reason to include any of those weapons when you can still make an Autorifle with less effort than it would take to re-learn how to make all those missing weapons. It'd be utter stupidity and insanity for anyone to even consider trying to resurrect such ideas let alone implement them.
-
Battletech has never been a full simulation that covers all possibilities and asking it to do so is frankly a disservice and the only reason to include them is because you want to re-enact those past conflicts.
There is zero reason to include any of those weapons when you can still make an Autorifle with less effort than it would take to re-learn how to make all those missing weapons. It'd be utter stupidity and insanity for anyone to even consider trying to resurrect such ideas let alone implement them.
I feel ninja'ed on this. I was going to post something along the lines of, "Even the most backwards of bandit kingdoms have a space program."
-
Battletech has never been a full simulation that covers all possibilities and asking it to do so is frankly a disservice and the only reason to include them is because you want to re-enact those past conflicts.
Here we go again. Straight to being a simulation to re-enact past conflicts. When did I ever say I wanted to do that? ???
There is zero reason to include any of those weapons when you can still make an Autorifle with less effort than it would take to re-learn how to make all those missing weapons. It'd be utter stupidity and insanity for anyone to even consider trying to resurrect such ideas let alone implement them.
And yet we have Bows and Arrows, Ancient Knight's Plate Armor, Gatling Guns, and "Vintage" Assault Rifles. It makes perfect sense to re-learn to make all these "Vintage" and "Ancient" weapons and armor but making Black Powder Weaponry is stupidity and insanity? ???
-
Yes.
Can we move on to other subjects?
-
Yes.
Can we move on to other subjects?
Right the point was to give examples of what if Ideas you have to fix or improve AToW.
-
Agreed, and debating their worthiness or lack thereof is really a distraction. Ultimately the project dev and line dev have to decide.
-
Wow, I just sped read through every post on every page of this thread--like, wow man...just wow.
-
... I'm talking about large weapons doing damage to squishy unarmored meatbags. Fired against a vehicular unit or BA, large weapons do damage per TW rules, but fired against infantry, anything with an AI tag or mounted to a Battlearmor has individual AP/BD values, but these are lacking for everything not in TW/TM/BMM
What are the AP/BD values of a ER Small Pulse Laser mounted to a mech and what values if a battlearmor is carrying one (stuff like Small Pulse lasers have different values for the mech and BA versions)? What about a BA mounted ER Medium Pulse Laser (the mech mounted one just multiplies the damage, but BA stuff has actual values), or a BA specific item like the BA LB-X AC.
I think the answers to these questions are located on page 211 of AToW under "Vehicular Weapons vs. Non-Battle Armor Infantry." There, it states that, "...any attack by vehicular weapons that directly hits a character will inflict damage with an AP of 10 and a BD equal to 6 times the weapon's Total Warfare damage value. For example, the Inner Sphere medium laser--with its Total Warfare value of 5--would inflict damage with the following AP/BD ratings in A Time of War: 10E/30."
As for Battle Armor mounted weapons, their values are located on the BATTLE ARMOR WEAPONS TABLE on page 215 of AToW. The ER Medium Pulse Laser's stats are 6E/7B.
-
I've cited that rule twice so far... hopefully your citation will stick...
-
I've cited that rule twice so far... hopefully your citation will stick...
Apparently, I don't speed read very well.
-
You speed read just fine... they're easy to miss in the back and forth.