Register Register

Author Topic: MechWarrior: Destiny  (Read 47147 times)

Asgo

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 165
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #750 on: 10 October 2019, 04:32:32 »
The more I read and reread the book, the more I like the system, but the more convinced I am that there needs to be a big effort to reorder the content. 

I added a lot of comments through the official feedback form, including some of the points that others have made here, but I really do think that this system is a winner and will be a lot more approachable once some more gameplay examples are added and a few sections are shuffled around.
while reordering can help, sometimes you have sections with multiple dependencies that no matter the order have some disconnect here or there. That is something you get used to once you are familiar with the layout.

having gameplay examples though helps a lot, in any system. Sure, you cannot cover more than some standard cases, but it provides a feal for the system and simplifies using the rules. I liked the example a few pages before, although crossing IPs probably should be avoided (and if you have to, use Cthulhu ;) ).

This holds even more so for a collaborative system where everyone should have an idea how to run the game not just the GM.

Speedbump

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #751 on: 12 October 2019, 15:12:27 »
Messing about with anydice I came up with the following odds of success for various total modifiers. It might be possible to go past -3 and +16 in extreme cases with multiple Traits and situational modifiers at the same time, but I figure I'm already reaching into the realm of edge cases expanding the table as far as I have:
Code: [Select]
Modifier Success Chance (%)
Easy Average Hard
-3 23.92 3.24 0.99
-2 33.56 5.88 1.97
-1 44.37 9.8 3.59
0 55.63 15.2 6.08
1 66.44 22.15 9.65
2 76.08 39.97 14.46
3 84.1 50 20.58
4 90.28 60.03 27.94
5 94.6 69.48 36.31
6 97.3 77.85 45.36
7 98.84 84.8 54.64
8 99.61 90.2 63.69
9 99.92 94.12 72.06
10 100 96.76 79.42
11 100 98.38 85.54
12 100 99.28 90.35
13 100 99.73 93.92
14 100 99.92 96.41
15 100 99.99 98.03
16 100 100 99.01
The results aren't anything massively shocking, but I generally like to do this to get an idea of how "competent" for want of a better word you can expect the PCs to be.
« Last Edit: 12 October 2019, 15:50:28 by Speedbump »

SteelShrike

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #752 on: 04 November 2019, 00:28:03 »
I was browsing the Ironwind Metals store today and saw that they had the House MechWarrior miniature packs for sale. Then it got me to wondering... are there any plans or would there be interest in making plays to release MechWarrior: Destiny miniatures? I think it'd be awesome to have more 25-28mm minis of generic or lore characters from the BattleTech universe to use for tabletop RPG sessions. Could really help make the RPG experience come alive. Maybe it would even put some of that new character art in the Destiny book to good use.
« Last Edit: 04 November 2019, 00:43:15 by SteelShrike »

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9512
  • CR 21 Bullshit Elemental
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #753 on: 04 November 2019, 00:43:52 »
it should be noted that the old school ral partha mechwarrior minis were fan-financed and used pre-existing sculpts. i would imagine a line of MW:D minis would have to be similarly funded. IWM has pretty much abandoned any mini creation that isn't mechs apart from the occasional con exclusive, online exclusive, or a coordinated fan-financed effort due to very low interest

SteelShrike

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #754 on: 04 November 2019, 01:26:59 »
That's a shame, though it seems fan-financed stuff seems to be the way forward for now at least anyways until BattleTech picks up steam again in the local game store market. I'm sure it's partially due to the fact that there wasn't much of a system to use them with in the past (apart from the past MechWarrior RPG editions I suppose). But if they wanted to push Destiny as a thing, having some minis to go with it would be fantastic I think. I'd certainly buy a bunch of them up in a heartbeat.

EDIT: I should add too, it wouldn't have to be IWM doing it. In fact, I'd prefer them to be plastic like the new Mech Packs. Of course, that would almost certainly require a Kickstarter of its own I imagine to finance. Still... something to keep in mind that I'd personally love to see.
« Last Edit: 04 November 2019, 01:34:56 by SteelShrike »

Cubby

  • Communications
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2245
  • Back in Black
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #755 on: 04 November 2019, 09:09:05 »
i would imagine a line of MW:D minis would have to be similarly funded.

Not necessarily.

But no current plans that I'm aware of.

I should add too, it wouldn't have to be IWM doing it. In fact, I'd prefer them to be plastic like the new Mech Packs. Of course, that would almost certainly require a Kickstarter of its own I imagine to finance.

See above.
Demo Team Agent #639, northeastern Maryland.

BattleTech Line Editor and Writer - Sarna.net Profile

Pat Payne

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
  • 352nd Combat Group -- Ex cinis ad astra
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #756 on: 04 November 2019, 14:03:39 »
Not necessarily.

But no current plans that I'm aware of.

See above.

That would be awesome to see plastic MechWarrior minis, if they decided to do it.

One question I have, just so long as you're in radar range :) … I had some tweak ideas on the beta I'd love o discuss, but don't know what the protocol would be on he forums. Would it be permitted to talk about them in Fan Designs, or as a closed beta is that completely off limits?

dgorsman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 767
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #757 on: 04 November 2019, 14:11:36 »
Not a contributor, but I do participate in a number of BETA test programs.  They all have a private discussion board or forum; was one ever set up for MW:D, or was this intended to be a fully open BETA?
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Cubby

  • Communications
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2245
  • Back in Black
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #758 on: 04 November 2019, 15:49:13 »
I had some tweak ideas on the beta I'd love o discuss, but don't know what the protocol would be on he forums. Would it be permitted to talk about them in Fan Designs, or as a closed beta is that completely off limits?

Not a contributor, but I do participate in a number of BETA test programs.  They all have a private discussion board or forum; was one ever set up for MW:D, or was this intended to be a fully open BETA?

If I follow what you're asking, the closest thing to a private discussion board for the MW:D Closed Beta is probably the comment threads on Update #40, which included the links to the PDF and the Google Form for feedback.

However, as I've said upthread, the results of that Google Form are what I'm using to collect, organize, and present feedback for developer and management review. While I assume you're free to post your thoughts here on the forums or wherever else, the Google Form is what I'm looking at. There's just too much other internet for me to try to collate each and every piece of feedback not submitted via the method management requested.

FWIW: Earlier this morning, we surpassed 250 individual submissions to that form - some people wrote one omnibus submission with all their feedback, some broke out their feedback with one note per submission, so it's much more than 250 individual notes. The feedback itself has run the full gamut of specificity (and usefulness) from very particular rules interactions that we hadn't thought of but do need to address, to "this system is trash, the end."
« Last Edit: 04 November 2019, 15:51:42 by Cubby »
Demo Team Agent #639, northeastern Maryland.

BattleTech Line Editor and Writer - Sarna.net Profile

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5325
  • Freshly Minted Line Developer
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #759 on: 04 November 2019, 15:55:48 »
Just to further the point home: the only thing the developers will be looking at is the feedback provided by the google form provided in the Kickstarter. Thanks.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech
Eater of Shit Sandwiches

Pat Payne

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
  • 352nd Combat Group -- Ex cinis ad astra
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #760 on: 04 November 2019, 16:37:48 »
Just to further the point home: the only thing the developers will be looking at is the feedback provided by the google form provided in the Kickstarter. Thanks.

Not so much for dev feedback but to discuss tweaks and hacks with other players, like "guys I have a cool idea". I wasn't sure if that's permitted.

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 571
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #761 on: 12 December 2019, 19:31:58 »
The more I read and reread the book, the more I like the system, but the more convinced I am that there needs to be a big effort to reorder the content. 

I had the opposite feeling...the more I read through it, the less I liked.
Some nice concepts and ideas to be sure but it isn't a system I will be using, there is again far too much trying to duplicate the board game which eats up huge amounts of space unnecessarily and so on.

I'll probably still buy a copy but the last thing a MW RPG needed was yet another MW generator and fragmentation. It now has five RPG systems, all of which have good points and bad points but none of which have really taken off in the way the universe deserves.

But - that's my opinion. Hopefully it'll work out.
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Lamont-Cranston

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #762 on: 03 January 2020, 23:39:39 »
I took one look at the chargen for AToW and said "nope".

Yeah the attempt to use, but without the dicerolls, the MW3 pathways is a bit wonky. But you can just ignore it and use a XP based generation.

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5325
  • Freshly Minted Line Developer
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #763 on: 04 January 2020, 10:50:58 »
Which is provided in the ATOW Companion. When ATOW is reprinted (no idea when), it’ll be a revised volume that incorporates that directly.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech
Eater of Shit Sandwiches

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13300
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #764 on: 04 January 2020, 11:01:04 »
Actually, "Points-Only Character Creation" is on page 51 of AToW, not the Companion.

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5325
  • Freshly Minted Line Developer
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #765 on: 04 January 2020, 11:25:39 »
Then I stand corrected: When ATOW is reprinted (no idea when), it’ll be a revised volume that incorporates point buy creation as the standard method, along with other elements added from the Companion.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech
Eater of Shit Sandwiches

DarkSpade

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2858
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #766 on: 04 January 2020, 11:39:49 »
Then I stand corrected: When ATOW is reprinted (no idea when), it’ll be a revised volume that incorporates point buy creation as the standard method, along with other elements added from the Companion.

The thing I liked about the life paths was that you're more likely to create a "real" character rather than min/maxed perfection, but the math was a huge pain.  What if the life path's math was just replaced with just minimums and maximums?   Like if you took noble you'd have a minimum of 100 XP in wealth, but a max of  25 XP in labor skills. Like before, mins and maxes are only for when your character is finished.
Space Marines are guys who look at a chainsaw and think, “That should be balanced for parrying.”

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 571
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #767 on: 04 January 2020, 11:41:50 »
Then I stand corrected: When ATOW is reprinted (no idea when), it’ll be a revised volume that incorporates point buy creation as the standard method, along with other elements added from the Companion.

I like ATOW, but I also think it did a lot wrong. Embracing the lifepath system was one of those mistakes. Which is difficult to admit, because I like it....but it is overly complex and, IMO, takes up far too much room and page count.

"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5325
  • Freshly Minted Line Developer
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #768 on: 04 January 2020, 11:45:48 »
The developers of ATOW unfortunately came to a similar conclusion soon after it was released, but never had a chance to put out a revised version.

If you’ve got other thoughts, may as well spill ‘em now.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech
Eater of Shit Sandwiches

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13300
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #769 on: 04 January 2020, 12:13:34 »
The modules take up less page count than the fiction, and as DarkSpade said, it's hard to beat as a system for organically creating a character that fits in the universe.  I built a spreadsheet to help with the math, as have others, and I saw at least one attempt to make a Java app to do the same.  As for other thoughts, that's what the link in my sig block is for...

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9938
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #770 on: 04 January 2020, 12:15:34 »
Yeah I do feel like I dropped the ball on a lot of stuff back during the beta in issuing recommendations for alterations while there was a chance to change a few things.

My big ones not related to that is how Wealth and Equipped are separate, discreet traits when both would be determined by the character's social strata, military rank, or position in a crime syndicate.

I do have some more specific thoughts on that I'd be glad to share if so desired.

Likewise Property as a trait feels really under developed as far as having good guidelines to determine the nature of the Property and the kind of resources it would provide the player.

And kind of related to all of that the guidelines for establishing how good at their jobs any NPC underlings of the PC are at their jobs is certainly lacking.

With the final trail of all this ending with the whole neofudalistic staple of Battletech being such a big part of the setting there are still a lot of elements of that which are poorly developed even through the Companion.  Especially in regards to what exactly happens if a Player Character winds up having a high enough landed title that he has vassals?

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3482
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #771 on: 04 January 2020, 13:26:08 »
Especially in regards to what exactly happens if a Player Character winds up having a high enough landed title that he has vassals?
Let the player create characters for those vassals, and play these instead.
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9938
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #772 on: 04 January 2020, 13:42:15 »
Let the player create characters for those vassals, and play these instead.

The main problem with that answer is it goes against the spirit of Battletech in general.

The secondary problem is it circles back around to one of my points about the neofeudalism in Battletech being poorly developed/explained.

As in it would make Title above 1 pointless depending on your interpretations of what we have available about Battletechs neofeudal titles.

Considering how much of a core principle of Battletech neofeudalism is I have trouble closing off GM and player access to it if they want such campaigns.

I know it is a certain kind of heresy to suggest that not all campaigns have to be focused on the big giant stompy robots but there are other kinds of stories to tell and AToW does probably the best job of supporting these other stories of all the available systems but there certainly needs some work done to fully answer some of these questions.

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13741
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #773 on: 04 January 2020, 14:01:29 »
A big problem there is that the setting itself barely supports the concept. Every army is treated like a professional army of volunteers. Regiments should be made up 100% out of the troops of Baron Random, who is committing them to the fight because of loyalty, personal gain, or because Count Someone has pressured him in to it.
You get whiffs of this with with the Skye separatists, but that's about it. Even Drac Warlords aren't independent enough, and every other split in the Inner Sphere is along nationalistic lines.
You have no MechWarriors pining about their obligations to their liege lords. You have no real pressure between the monarch and his vassals. It just doesn't happen on any level in any meaningful way.

Which is a shame.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9938
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #774 on: 04 January 2020, 14:15:13 »
A big problem there is that the setting itself barely supports the concept. Every army is treated like a professional army of volunteers. Regiments should be made up 100% out of the troops of Baron Random, who is committing them to the fight because of loyalty, personal gain, or because Count Someone has pressured him in to it.
You get whiffs of this with with the Skye separatists, but that's about it. Even Drac Warlords aren't independent enough, and every other split in the Inner Sphere is along nationalistic lines.
You have no MechWarriors pining about their obligations to their liege lords. You have no real pressure between the monarch and his vassals. It just doesn't happen on any level in any meaningful way.

Which is a shame.

*nod*

The thing that astonishes me is how much of a big deal/the center piece of Battletech is the neofeudalistic aspect of it despite what you say being entirely too true.

Despite Battletech moving away from neofeudalism as one of it's core concepts it is still a pretty important core concept in my opinion, especially during certain eras.

Yet my comments about it being very poorly developed/explained hold true even during those eras.

So I guess the question becomes at what title level do players have to start worrying about having vassals?

Most classical feudal systems would put that at anything above Knight but I grant Battletech doesn't have to be beholden to any classical system and even if it were there are a lot of variations it can choose from.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13300
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #775 on: 04 January 2020, 14:16:46 »
Monbvol, don't forget it takes at least 300 XP for Title to matter.  Vassals don't even enter the picture until 500 XP.  That kind of limits player investment.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9938
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #776 on: 04 January 2020, 17:19:00 »
As I stated that depends on the variation being used and under English Feudalism it is at least debatable that Squires are vassals of Knights which is a non-inheritable title under that system but to be fair I'm not clear enough on that title to know where I'd put it on the AToW table and as stated it can be argued if Squires should be considered vassals or not as the research I'm looking at doesn't break down the Knight title like Battletech does.

Ultimately though I still stand by my two points of we don't know enough about the various neofeudal systems that Battletech uses and I don't like the idea of invalidating campaign and character concepts in this way when neofeudalism is such a big part of the setting, at least during certain eras.


Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13300
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #777 on: 04 January 2020, 17:26:22 »
Vassalage is certainly debatable, but whatever it turns out to be, given that it takes a minimum of 300 XP to even ask the question, I wouldn't expect too much trouble.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9938
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #778 on: 04 January 2020, 17:42:25 »
I do accept it seems to be a catch 22 in many ways.

Players are not going to be inclined to invest that kind of XP on something that as it exists now is largely nothing but an XP sink/tax but the only way to change that is to put a lot of effort into defining/explaining the neofeudal system of Battletech and giving much better guidelines than what exist now about what it does for your character and the kind of resources it provides.  I say this fully aware of what is presented in the Companion.

Personally I find Rank is in a very similar situation as it is one of the things my group consistently avoids as much as possible as even with what is presented in the Companion it is such a huge XP sink/tax for too little return.

But that is why a fair portion of my house rules exist the way they are currently.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13300
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #779 on: 04 January 2020, 17:56:25 »
Makes sense to me!

 

Register