Akirapryde2006
11/16/15 10:17 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Okay so I know that there is a miniature side of Battletech, but there is also a Role Playing side of this game called Mechwarrior.
As I have been going through the new rules that have been written for the game. I am finding that these game rules are more tailored for the miniatures side of the game. Some of these rules like the ship construction rules and the limitations on the LAM don't really conform to a role playing side of the game.
So my question is, of those who had a hand in creating the new rules, how many have actually played the role playing side of the game. Or did they draw their experience only from the Miniature side of the game?
I am not saying that either side is better than the other. Please don't mistake this topic.
I am looking at rules that are designed for game balance in the miniatures but simply don't make any sense in the role playing side.
So I would like to see where the experience of the authors are. This would help me better understand why some rules exist the way they do.
Akira
|
Drasnighta
11/16/15 11:07 AM
198.53.98.65
|
Not an author, but looking back anyway:
I can't comment on the most recent iteration (as I do not own it), but the relationship between the Mechwarrior RPG and the BattleTech Board game has been tenuous at best in the past.
The MechWarrior RPG was always more detailed - much more detailed. Going into things that are simply abstracted or outright ignored in the Tabletop Game, for game balance purposes.
The Mechwarrior RPG was always about telling a story - and that story was all. The game rules exist to facilitate that story on the way through.
Whereas the Board Game is just that - a Board game. Its story sense is shoehorned and abstract in comparison.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
ghostrider
11/16/15 12:55 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Not one of the authors, but I would suspect the miniature/board game was set for fast play, and keep the rules that way. Something as simple as trying to hijack a mech that just powered up goes from the personal warrior to miniature play which basically says there is no way to do it.
The boarder becomes a single infantry man, which means a single weapons hit kills them, while the pilot can't do anything like scrape a person off the unit without causing major damage to itself or anything around it.
And one of the biggest holes I have seen has been sighting. A unit that leaves the sight of battle can be tracked on instruments. But so can infantry. Infantry on the other hand don't know where others are. Which sucks as you can not observe any units with spotters as they are found, and no way for unit to get into an ambush situation since they don't know where units are. Yet this is the meat and potatoes of a warrior type game.
Some skills make no sense when changing from personal to unit battles. Sensor operator is worthless in unit battles. ANYONE turning on a sensor can tell from the start what is a target and what isn't. ie a tree or bunny rabbit running in the field.
Cray might be the only one on the board that has information if they developers actually get together and play like this. I doubt it, since time issues would be a big thing.
Now for my opinion, I really don't think many of them actually do more the playtest the game. I seriously doubt they have characters outside of house leaders that they actually run.
There is a problem with those making the game and them playing it. They can do whatever they want, but not the people that buy the game.
The reason why I say this is some of the scenario packs have some odd rules in them, but they never published them in the main rule books.
And cray. It might be advisable to suggest a campaign or at least encounter tables to allow the novice and even more advanced players to create encounters on the spot, like a standard ammo depot (which should not contain an engine of any sort), or what might be in a repair facility. Certain things like what it takes to load a ppc when you don't have a forklift or rail system to lift it into a vehicle. 7 tons is NOT something a platoon of infantry is going to lift, and I doubt a company of it will fit.
And maybe get some stats on targeting and tracking systems, and actually set up some sort of rules for that. And infantry should not be able to just listen for a unit after explosives are used, ie the unit took some damage should not hear for a while afterward, unless they have sound damping helmets. And from the looks of it, not all crews are equipped with a full head helmet.
Edited by ghostrider (11/16/15 12:56 PM)
|
Cray
11/16/15 06:30 PM
72.189.109.30
|
I have played MW 1st edition (some), MW 2nd edition (a fair bit), MW 3rd edition for 1 session (character creation and combat were slow enough to drive me nuts), and playtested and currently use MW 4th edition / A Time of War here and there (mostly for the background events of merc units between 'Mech battles.)
Compared to MW3, ATOW is a much speedier game, both in character creation and combat. Point buy is back to being a staple of character creation, like MW2, though there's still support for a lifepath-type system if you like that. There's a learning curve to the skill system, but it's fast enough after you try it a few times and the book is stuffed with examples. MW2 is probably simpler yet, but is far out of date on the game setting.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Akirapryde2006
11/16/15 06:53 PM
97.103.38.26
|
It is nice to know that you actually are a Role Player as well as a miniature gamer Cray.
During our group started off with MW1, then in the middle of the game changed over to MW2. I loved it. The entire MW2 system was so easy to get in to. MW3 turned me off so much that I actually burned the two MW3 books that were given to me as gifts. I found the system overly complicated and over loaded with too much extras that slows down character creation to a crawl. The guy that gave me the gift actually apologized for the books.
After reading the entire Strategic Operations book, I am confident to say that I am sure that MW4 should be pretty smooth to run/play. But I really don't have the desire to learn a new system. I would like to sit down and play it, but there are no Mechwarrior groups in my area. I actually feel like the game and its draw are dying here. It makes me sad......
Cray, does the new system keep single die system or does it continue the multi-die system that MW3 had?
|
Cray
11/17/15 06:36 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
Cray, does the new system keep single die system or does it continue the multi-die system that MW3 had?
ATOW is rigorously 2d6, and has somewhere between nothing and squat in common with MW3's system. The intent of the developer was to standardize dice with the other core rulebooks and simplify any conversion between ATOW and boardgame play.
Here's the summary from the Overview section (on pg. 34 - the first 30-ish pages are an intro to the BT universe.)
"When dice are used to resolve an action (an Action Check), the
player rolls against an appropriate target number (TN) based on
the Skill, Attribute or Trait being used. Modifiers, based on the
complexity of the action and the circumstances surrounding it,
are applied to the roll result (the outcome shown on the dice).
If the roll for the Action Check�after adding in all modifiers�
equals or exceeds the acting character�s target number, the action
is considered a success. If the roll falls below the target number,
the action is considered a failure."
Making skilled action checks is typically a matter of finding the base target number and then "link modifiers" (the modifiers of attributes linked to a skill). Plus any situational modifiers. Pretty standard fare. Basic game play - pure attribute checks, skilled checks, opposed checks - are summarized in about 3 or 4 pages around pg39-42, give or take.
There are differences from, say, d20 systems. Generally, in d20 and other modern attribute+skill+roll game systems, you either pass or fail. Results are handled separately. In DnD3 to DnD5, you either hit or miss, then roll damage. In ATOW, the margin of success (or margin of failure) applies to results, affecting outcome - just how well your athletic flip went, or how much damage you did with a shot, or how well you hacked a computer. This does speed up combat since there are fewer rolls.
Another difference is that the basic target number for any skill is based on the skill. There's not a universal "roll X or better on dY" (like Shadowrun or World of Darkness), and there aren't armor classes and difficulty classes for challenges that apply on a case-by-case basis. It simply depends on the skill - some skills are easier than others. The numbers all vary from 7 to 9.
Instead of changing the target number, modifiers are applied entirely to your dice roll. Streamlined, but a bit different than games like d20 (where the target number - someone's AC - can vary, and your attack roll can change.) And it's all resolved with that modified 2d6 roll.
Skills are also assigned complexity codes. These two letter codes tell you if a skill is basic or advanced (i.e., can be used untrained or requires training) and if it's simple or complex (i.e., can be done in part of a turn or requires most of a turn.) Those are pretty universal features of modern game systems, ATOW just puts them in the master skill table for convenience. The first time you read it, be ready for a "WTF does that mean?" moment, but it's just saying what many games do about skills: trained or untrained, full turn or part turn actions.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 8 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 6459
|
|
|
|
|
|
|