Register Register

Author Topic: MechWarrior: Destiny  (Read 45898 times)

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13156
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #810 on: 05 January 2020, 18:46:42 »
No argument there, but the emphasis should be on integrating the two, not building each on its own.

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 558
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #811 on: 05 January 2020, 18:50:34 »
And THAT"s why we disagree. 

Perhaps.

But if all you want is an adjunct to the board game, then you don't need ATOW, or Destiny, or MW at all. There is no need to develop an RPG if you don't create an RPG

If you want an RPG, then the game should be designed as an RPG, and that means the Tactical Addendum section is largely unnecessary.



"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

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13698
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #812 on: 05 January 2020, 18:52:05 »
How perfect of a circle does this discussion have to become before you guys call it good?

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13156
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #813 on: 05 January 2020, 18:57:09 »
I'm willing to call it good here (on opposite ends of a diameter), but I didn't start the thread, so the mods won't end it on my say so.

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13698
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #814 on: 05 January 2020, 19:33:43 »
No need to end the thread, you guys just seemed to be saying the same thing each post with no progress.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9935
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #815 on: 05 January 2020, 20:54:24 »
My main thought is that in a crowded RPG market place if you want one for Battletech to stand out you need to build it for Battletech.

To me that does mean the system does need to be flexible enough that you can run a campaign where mechs are set dressing at best but can integrate seemlessly with a more focused on the individual PCs than Total Warfare tends to  allow combat system that if you want can be carried even further into a full blown Total Warfare game.

Now to be fair from what I've seen of Destiny's attempt of that particular aspect of an intermediary combat system that probably would be the better seed to grow from than the Tactical Combat Addendum.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9462
  • CR 21 Bullshit Elemental
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #816 on: 05 January 2020, 21:06:44 »
I think any suggestions are contingent on TPB’s overall vision for the rules. Do they want:

1) a system that exists within the BTU, but not necessarily interconnected with other rules
2) a system that is meant to integrate with the scale chain from AToW to ISaW
3) something else

Otherwise we’re just pitching our own rulebooks

Asgo

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #817 on: 05 January 2020, 21:40:58 »
No argument there, but the emphasis should be on integrating the two, not building each on its own.
Personally, I would say that is a problematic approach when creating a RPG.
The game types are just to different to interface them in an ergonomic fashion and still do both sides justice, in particular for Battletech with its high detail focus.
It adds just too many limitations on the RPG creation process and adds too many details on the wrong elements.
It may be a good approach if you see the RPG as an extended campaign mode for the board game, but that is a limitation for a standalone RPG product.

However I have to agree with Sartris, the points argued here are not bugs to be fixed they are design decision and those depend on the objective of the product.

The_Big_Red_Bear

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 85
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #818 on: 05 January 2020, 21:52:32 »
Personally, I would say that is a problematic approach when creating a RPG.
The game types are just to different to interface them in an ergonomic fashion and still do both sides justice, in particular for Battletech with its high detail focus.
It adds just too many limitations on the RPG creation process and adds too many details on the wrong elements.
It may be a good approach if you see the RPG as an extended campaign mode for the board game, but that is a limitation for a standalone RPG product.

However I have to agree with Sartris, the points argued here are not bugs to be fixed they are design decision and those depend on the objective of the product.

I know I decided to skip Destiny based off what I read of the design decisions. I think that the best decision they could have made would have been to really just focus on Mechwarriors themselves, and doing expansions for support classes, or other elements of life, almost like how the old Dark Heresy system worked for 40k.

Mechwarrior: The RPG, should just be a system designed to enhance the main game, or attach itself to BT / Alpha Strike, for Mechwarriors. Yea, Aerospace Pilots, Agents, Tankers, ect, lose out but that's all very niche in the main setting.

Doing as they are with Destiny... just meh. It's not a product made for me, which is fine, but it also means it's not a product I'll buy.

Asgo

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #819 on: 05 January 2020, 22:01:31 »
..
Mechwarrior: The RPG, should just be a system designed to enhance the main game, or attach itself to BT / Alpha Strike, for Mechwarriors. Yea, Aerospace Pilots, Agents, Tankers, ect, lose out but that's all very niche in the main setting.
...
but then you don't have to be surprised if it stays a niche product as a RPG. ;)

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13156
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #820 on: 05 January 2020, 22:07:13 »
The 'mech combat system presented in Destiny is hopelessly broken.  That's been covered elsewhere, though.

The_Big_Red_Bear

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 85
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #821 on: 05 January 2020, 22:08:01 »
but then you don't have to be surprised if it stays a niche product as a RPG. ;)

I've got a spoiler for you.

Mechwarrior RPG's are going to be a niche product regardless. I don't expect Destiny to blow-up into a major release. I think it'll flounder like most post-90's Battletech RPG's. :|

Asgo

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #822 on: 05 January 2020, 22:14:40 »
I've got a spoiler for you.

Mechwarrior RPG's are going to be a niche product regardless. I don't expect Destiny to blow-up into a major release. I think it'll flounder like most post-90's Battletech RPG's. :|
oh sure, but the point is, if you limit the focus to basically being a board game addon it is designed to fail as a standalone RPG product. ;)
and Destiny still  has too much of that so I don't expect a too different outcome.

The_Big_Red_Bear

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 85
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #823 on: 05 January 2020, 22:17:35 »
oh sure, but the point is, if you limit the focus to basically being a board game addon it is designed to fail as a standalone RPG product. ;)
and Destiny still  has too much of that so I don't expect a too different outcome.

I'd only say, that Dark Heresy did very well, and is a good game (even if its not an add on) because it narrows focus on different groups to play, rather than being a catch-all.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9935
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #824 on: 05 January 2020, 22:19:49 »
If CGL had the resources and market share to do the same thing that wouldn't be a terrible idea to emulate.

The_Big_Red_Bear

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 85
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #825 on: 05 January 2020, 22:25:40 »
If CGL had the resources and market share to do the same thing that wouldn't be a terrible idea to emulate.

It becomes a question of, if you can't make a product that will satisfy a large portion of your audience, or won't capture a new audience, then why are you making it in the first place?

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9935
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #826 on: 05 January 2020, 22:48:10 »
Just because something works for Games Workshop doesn't mean CGL can do it nor should CGL shouldn't try to put out an RPG since there is obvious demand for one just because it might be different.

The_Big_Red_Bear

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 85
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #827 on: 05 January 2020, 22:51:47 »
Just because something works for Games Workshop doesn't mean CGL can do it nor should CGL shouldn't try to put out an RPG since there is obvious demand for one just because it might be different.

That's not what I said.

I am saying that I don't see who Mechwarrior: Destiny, appeals to, as a product from its inception. That's a problem. Yes, some people here may have enjoyed it, but it's not going to capture a new audience, and it doesn't feed its traditional audience enough, to justify its creation.

Asgo

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #828 on: 05 January 2020, 23:08:56 »
If CGL had the resources and market share to do the same thing that wouldn't be a terrible idea to emulate.
limited resources is a good point.
From that perspective using all the synergies in terms of previous work and customer base is quite helpful.
Another advantage of keeping a strong mech(warrior) focus is that it basically in itself can provide the Battletech theme/flair to the product.
Without that you have to invest a lot more man hours to give it the character of a Battletech RPG and not just a generic SciFi RPG.

...
I am saying that I don't see who Mechwarrior: Destiny, appeals to, as a product from its inception. That's a problem. Yes, some people here may have enjoyed it, but it's not going to capture a new audience, and it doesn't feed its traditional audience enough, to justify its creation.
I agree it might be too much of a compromise - we probably won't agree on which side of the compromise it should put more focus. ;)

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9935
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #829 on: 05 January 2020, 23:43:16 »
That's not what I said.

I am saying that I don't see who Mechwarrior: Destiny, appeals to, as a product from its inception. That's a problem. Yes, some people here may have enjoyed it, but it's not going to capture a new audience, and it doesn't feed its traditional audience enough, to justify its creation.

1. There are people reporting that they like Mechwarrior: Destiny.  Based off this comment I feel safe in saying: Just because it doesn't appeal to you, or myself to be honest, doesn't mean Mechwarrior: Destiny will be a failure.

2. Mechwarrior: Destiny is still in beta and not fully live.  So it may change some things.

3. I've been talking in terms of a revised A Time of War that Adrian has hinted at being in the works since his latest comment in this thread.  So there may be some confusion going on here.

Which I raise a point of order maybe a thread split would be wise.

The_Big_Red_Bear

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 85
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #830 on: 05 January 2020, 23:49:17 »
1. There are people reporting that they like Mechwarrior: Destiny.  Based off this comment I feel safe in saying: Just because it doesn't appeal to you, or myself to be honest, doesn't mean Mechwarrior: Destiny will be a failure.

2. Mechwarrior: Destiny is still in beta and not fully live.  So it may change some things.

3. I've been talking in terms of a revised A Time of War that Adrian has hinted at being in the works since his latest comment in this thread.  So there may be some confusion going on here.

Which I raise a point of order maybe a thread split would be wise.

It comes out in march my dude, at least according to the pledge manager. That Beta is running pretty close to print time, wouldn't you say? How long before things have to go to print to get packaged and sent out? And a lot of those likes all come with big caveats that I don't think most of the RPG communities out there would want to deal with. In general, the current market for RPG's is saturated by simple systems, more simple than Destiny, or any other BT/MW RPG. The reason for this is they're all aiming for maximum marketshare, and it works for them. The more complex systems that do well, have larger inbuilt audiences than BT/MW.

It just strikes me as a product that's not going to be satisfactory enough to anyone, especially over the long term. It's like Wrath and Glory almost, ironically a game that went for mass appeal but just kinda fell flat. Too complex for some, too simple for others, and not really faithful enough to the property to make any inroads. But, MW:D has a different set of issues that W&G, I'm just using that as an example. And that game has a bigger IP, and landed like a whale on a beach.

For the record, I'm not big on ATOW either.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9935
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #831 on: 06 January 2020, 00:03:06 »
Well back on the topic of Mechwarrior: Destiny I will agree I hope another beta release for people to comment on will be made before it prints and it seems likely March is a very premature/optimistic launch date for it to go live on with all the problems that have been reported about it that need fixing.

As for AToW I grant it does need some fairly significant reworking of it's own and I do hope the mods agree that a thread split is in order as I would love to continue providing contributions towards that end but having that discussion here does obviously confuse things a bit.

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 558
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #832 on: 06 January 2020, 06:46:26 »
I think any suggestions are contingent on TPB’s overall vision for the rules. Do they want:

1) a system that exists within the BTU, but not necessarily interconnected with other rules
2) a system that is meant to integrate with the scale chain from AToW to ISaW
3) something else

Otherwise we’re just pitching our own rulebooks

Last post on the issue....

I think that if you want to develop and sell an RPG as opposed to a pilot generator for the board, then you need to develop and sell an actual RPG.

That doesn'y mean ignoring Mechs. Far from it. This IS the BTU.

But, IMO,  it cannot be done by trying to recreate the board game or replace it. If you have the board game and are in a position to use the TacAdd rules from ATOW, it also means you can play using board game rules.

My take?

You need to include several options.

First....the RPG combat sections needs cleaned up and rewritten. The same can be said for much of ATOW.
Second...the RPG needs a decent vehicular combat section independent of the board game. This section should address the use of Mechs within an RPG section.

The mass of rules appropriate only for the board game can and should be dropped.

Third...rather than bring the board game into the RPG by creating an RPG ruleset, the RPG should look at ways of integrating the board game into the RPG using the board game rules.

This would require fleshing out but would require a skill equivalence table. You have gunnery and piloting, but initiative would be a tactics roll.  Morale checks would be leadership. Shutdown avoidance a computer roll.

No need for conversion stats if you can use the board game directly.
Instead, you'd want a specific Vehicular Attribute:

Ablative Armour. Immune to Personal and Support Scale Weaponry.

Weapon scales to be retwigged....
Personal: 1-10
Support: 1-10 with 10 Personal = 1 Support.
Mech: Board Game.

There could be an argument for a fourth scale  (Conventional?) to specifically cover Support Vehicles. They would be coveted by board game rules, but there may be too much of a change in scale and effectiveness following the Support Scale.


You'd also want to tweak the armour rules, giving weapons a suitable AP value for a specific scale.

And for weapons? They can only damage armour of the same scale, unless they have the AntiArmour feature or Anti Mech, which allows them to do damage according to their Rating.

So, an SRM with an AntiMech rating of 2 would do 2 points of damage to Mech scale Ablative armour, a Light SRM with an AMR of 1 would do 1 point.

The ideas here would need to be fleshed out. And there are other mechanics that could be used if these wouldn't work.

But the point here is that there is no need to recreate the board game rules within the RPG. Maybe, if there were pages to burn, but there aren't.

Instead of providing what is effectively a new ruleset for the boardgame, the RPG should simply use the board game and its rules, leverage what is already there by finding ways to bring those mechanics into the RPG.

An infantry portable LRM that has an AntiMechRating of 1 means it does 1 point of damage to targets with Mech Scale Ablative armour. A weapon without an AMR ability...which should be most, or even all other non missile support weapons...doesn't even scratch the paint.

I'm not against integrating the board game...but an RPG by its nature, should be an RPG and focus on the personal scale because we already have the board game for larger. Developing a game merely to act as a pilot generator is a waste and while ATOW does make efforts to move away, the inclusion of the Tactical Addendum section shows it hasn't moved far enough.  That is made clear in other sections where the game stops being an RPG and moves into something more akin to Squad Commander.

ATOW doesn't need that. Instead, certain skills should have an addendum as to how they are used in other games. It should het a dedicated RPG focussed vehicular combat section. It should remove the examples which focus on scenarios best left to other games.

It should focus on the personal RPG scale which is where it works best.

But...my opinion. I like ATOW but there is so much room for improvement, and a big reason is that it does try to bring in the board game. 

And unfortunately...trying to return to topic here...I see Destiny making some of the same mistakes. Just as I see it embracing new concepts that I like. The scale concept I mentioned above is one.

Now, it is also the case that I'm just looking at ATOW and Destiny with different values and priorities, that I want it to do different things. That is why all the above is just MO.
« Last Edit: 06 January 2020, 06:55:52 by Talen5000 »
"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

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13156
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #833 on: 06 January 2020, 17:42:46 »
Excellent write up, Talen5000.  I'd like it more if I agreed with more of it.

First, I have to say I agree a general cleaning up and reorganization wouldn't hurt at all.  Dropping the fiction tops my list for this, as it always has.

I think the game already has too many scales.  In my opinion, the table top rules should be the "simplification" that the RPG should collapse to at that scale, without requiring a large conversion section.  Simple skill conversions should be the rule (i.e., scrapping the dropping of Linked Attribute bonuses, and making explicit use of skills like Computer, Sensor Operations and Communications/Conventional).

Special Pilot Abilities exist at the table top level, and should be retained.  I LIKE the fact there are rules (and strict prerequisites) for obtaining them in AToW.  They make more sense than 'mech Quirks to me.

Straight up immunities should be avoided.  They're another form of singularity, which should be avoided at all costs in game design.  They're essentially infinities.  Should every small arms round do damage?  Certainly not, but there should be mechanisms for "lucky" or "massed fire" shots.  And I think the existing rules due that adequately, if not the best.  That system is embedded in the conversion rules in the Companion, which were apparently adapted from the rules the developers used to stat out all the infantry weapons.  I think that system is superior to FASA's first attempt in the back of the original 3026 (that assigned every small arm a specific roll necessary to actually damage a 'mech).

Honestly, I think we're a lot closer to each other's view points than I previously thought, if not in complete alignment.

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 558
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #834 on: 06 January 2020, 19:30:46 »
First, I have to say I agree a general cleaning up and reorganization wouldn't hurt at all.  Dropping the fiction tops my list for this, as it always has.

Fiction is near the top of he list to go, but it does have a purpose. Recreating the board game with RPG rules does not. There is a lot of space - IMO - simply wasted because too much of the games focus is on the Mech scale, too much emphasis given to squad and lance commander escapades, or ruels which assume you are a mechwarrior piloting a mech on the board game. There is too else much that could be dropped or simplified for fiction to be at the top of the list to be dropped. Stuff that, IMO, doesn't fit in an RPG and shouldn't be there.

Quote
I think the game already has too many scales.

The game is trying to fit in everything from sticks and swords and knives through support weaponry, heavy machines guns, particle weapons and then the Mech PPC, WarShip scale weaponry and so on. A linear scale would need to go from 1-100 or 1-1000 to provide sufficient granularity. Destiny brought int he scale concept, and I like it - but Personal Scale and Mech Scale doesn't offer anywhere near enough differentiation. A Support scale in between the two could offer that and there would argubaly even be room for a fourths cale to represent conventional/support units and primitive vehicles. Which would be the units an RPG team should mostly face.

Quote
Straight up immunities should be avoided.  They're another form of singularity, which should be avoided at all costs in game design.  They're essentially infinities.  Should every small arms round do damage?  Certainly not, but there should be mechanisms for "lucky" or "massed fire" shots.

I'll offer an example - how many rounds should you be able to fire from a pistol before you erode away the armour of an M1 tank?
Immunities have their place. The key point is that infantry can be given the tools necessary to defeat the tank - in this case, an ATGM. Or, in BT terms, an infantry scale SRM.

But as I said, the mechanics I suggested were a quick off the top of my head example to show how an RPG could leverage the existing boardgame rather than try to recreate the wheel.

Quote
And I think the existing rules due that adequately, if not the best.  That system is embedded in the conversion rules in the Companion, which were apparently adapted from the rules the developers used to stat out all the infantry weapons.  I think that system is superior to FASA's first attempt in the back of the original 3026 (that assigned every small arm a specific roll necessary to actually damage a 'mech).

It was stupid then, and it's still a stupid idea and one that breaks the universe. Infantry NEED to be useless, or nearly so, against Mechs because if small arms can damage them, Mechs get taken out easily and cheaply and become useless. It must be embarrassing to lose your mech to an arrow storm. I understand the reasons why the game allows for it - it makes infantry useful and provides a bit of unit variety but it does not, indeed cannot, be representative of the universe. You throw a swarm of infantry against a Mech and what you should end up with is a mountain of dead infantry and an undamaged Mech, no matter what the chances of a "lucky hit" might be.  That's why infantry have LRMs and (for the suicidal) detpacks. This idea that small arms (and even most/all support weapons) need to be "converted" and allowed to damage Mechs is one the game shoud, again IMO, drop. Doing so would simplify quite a bit in the RPG, and even the boardgame.  But I've had this discussion as well.

Anyway, I will be actively trying to resist the temptation to offer further commentary. I think I've made my feelings on this issue clear. I do hope Destiny is more successful than previous RPGs, but to be honest, I'm not a fan of the system, I'm not going to run it myself and I don't know anyone who will. But I probably am not the target audience.

"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

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13156
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #835 on: 06 January 2020, 19:37:56 »
Agreed on Destiny not being my cup of tea either... in order to help you resist commenting further, I won't add anything more either.  Cheers!  :)

Panthros

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 128
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #836 on: 03 February 2020, 01:59:27 »
Please bring back the priority system of Mechwarrior 2nd Edition.  It still works in Shadowrun after all these years which tells you something.  Some friends and I are introducing Mechwarrior 2nd Edition to new players as we do a mix of MegaMek and RPG and the priority system just makes it so easy to create a character. Yes I know people could maker better than average Mechwarrior pilots but they would quickly not be balanced when not in a mech and learn there lesson.  I always hated the lifepath/life module system but maybe that is just me as it makes the game so much more complicated for new players.  The feedback so far has been really positive.  Unfortunately people have had to take to Ebay since the 2nd edition of the rules is not sold in PDF. 

In Mechwarrior Destiny, I guess I was hoping it would bring it back.  I do like the experience level section but should still be a priority level once the experience level has been chosen.  Some people prefer more skills points, some people attributes and others sometimes just want the cash (hardware) for a better mech.  You can tone down the points for attributes and skills if green and up if veteran for example. 
« Last Edit: 03 February 2020, 02:01:26 by Panthros »

Wotan

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1490
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #837 on: 03 February 2020, 02:54:52 »
The priority system definitely gives you more control on your character. Up to the point that you can create the very same character a dozen times. But in the end you have exactly that character you wanted.

With the lifepath system you have random results included, what makes your character unique. But sometimes also an unwanted result. In my eyes the biggest improvement of a lifepath system is that you already have a basic story arc for your character when finished. I see too many players playing generic characters without any background story what is lame for other players and GM.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13156
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #838 on: 03 February 2020, 05:40:56 »
Random results?  Sounds like you're talking about 3rd Edition, not AToW...

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9462
  • CR 21 Bullshit Elemental
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #839 on: 03 February 2020, 10:46:27 »
yeah, definitely 3rd ed. you could have made a spin-off board game where the winner was the person who came out of the character creation process the least deformed

 

Register