Ironnerd
09/20/17 10:02 PM
47.36.1.7
|
Am I the only one who actually hates "A Time of War"? I would rather play 1st Edition than this sack of gag.
|
ghostrider
09/21/17 03:19 AM
66.74.61.223
|
I wish I could say I was with you, but never bought a time of war.
Giving 3rd edition said the rules were obsolete as 4th edition was being worked on at the time of the release, I gave up on buying they newer books.
1st edition wasn't that bad, but it did have some major holes in it. The abilities plus skill subtracted from 18 didn't quite work out as well as it should have.
The main thing it needed was more skills in it. Some things came out in 2nd that should have been in 1st. But then the game itself was an attempt to put an rpg spin on a board game that had some issues.
Still worth while to play.
|
Karagin
09/21/17 06:29 AM
72.176.187.91
|
I will stick to 1st and 2nd Edition over 3rd and ToW for the RPG side.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Ironnerd
09/22/17 09:02 AM
47.36.1.7
|
I did buy 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions, but not ToW. I liked 1st edition because it worked. Disorganized as all hell, full of holes, missing skills, but the basics were pretty good. 2nd was okay - it addressed some of 1st's problems, introduced the Clanners into role play, was better organized. 3rd was goofy. i just could not make myself like it. 4th has some nice points actually, but is generally poop.
I may give 2nd another look. But my general preference is 1st.
|
ghostrider
09/23/17 12:47 AM
66.74.61.223
|
I would suggest use 1st, but add in some of 2nd's skills to it. We did that and it seemed alot more workable.
That is if you haven't done so already.
3rd was ok, if you wanted a generic background to npc's, but the career paths made your character too old to be worth much if you really wanted some decent skills. And some did not fit well with others.
|
Ironnerd
09/23/17 04:00 PM
47.36.1.7
|
I do actually like the Faction-Specific background items in 4th/aToW. I also like some of the skills from 2nd. I think a customized version of 1st edition is still the best. 1st was dreadfully disorganized, but was also the best "Battletech" RPG. As the game evolved, it seemed to become more generic.
|
Akalabeth
09/28/17 06:21 PM
75.155.167.106
|
Nope. Mechwarrior 3e was a lot more fun.
PC characters in ATOW are pathetic, weaker than a joe schmoe pilot in the board game, edge is restricted to very specific circumstances, the rules are poorly written, there's practically no support for it with zero print-modules/adventures released (only the companion and some PDFs).
Also personally I really liked the random life path thing of Mechwarrior 3e. You can build a character just by rolling the dice and then making it up later. In ATOW I found that the system was subject to abuse, the GM had to crack down on powergamers because they could dump a bunch of points into a worthless negative trait and make their character some super dude.
Maybe 1e and 2e were better but I never played 'em so that's my only other point of reference
Edited by Akalabeth (09/28/17 09:49 PM)
|
ATN082268
09/29/17 12:56 PM
69.128.58.222
|
In the late nineties, I posted on the rec.games.mech forum the following about the MechWarrior 3 RPG:
"It has been about 10 days since I bought the Mechwarrior 3 RPG and I thought
I would give my first impressions of it after reading through a little of it. I
liked the life paths during character creation which gave me some good ideas
for character background. The detailed encumbrance and combat rules were more
realistic and a welcomed change. I did notice, however, that the XP required to
increase a skill bonus was rather steep, given the XP chart.
For example, if a starting player character with 2 link attributes of 7 which
are applicable to a standard skill with a bonus of +3 and the character has
been trained/had experience in the skill before each increase in bonus, it
would take 735 XP to increase it to the maximum of +10. With a gaming session
that nets about 10 XP and meets about once a week, it would take around 73
weeks in real time for that player character to max out in just one skill,
assuming he devoted all his XP gained during that period towards its
advancement. The problem is compounded with the numerous skills which have
subskills that must be learned and improved separately. I am of the position
that player characters should be the heroes of the game and should advance
quicker than the MW3 system would suggest."
|
ghostrider
09/29/17 10:24 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Where the problem with the first 3 editions, as I stopped after I got 3rd edition, is the fact, you can't really take your character and play a normal game. That is unless you pump everything you possibly can into gunnery and piloting, leaving you with almost nothing for secondary skills for role playing.
And with the characters they have in the adventure packs, have skills at a point that is not possible with the rpgs. There is no way you can make a phlen ward character, as he is elite in mech warriors skills with almost the most expert tech on top of brawler/unarmed combat. All before he is 20 years old. Kai liao allard is another one that did something similar with the earlier editions. Natural aptitude in gunnery, but the game did not allow that combination.
So I guess that comes down to their conversion. To be a normal 4 gun/5 pilot, you have to dump alot of points to be considered regular, as the game is not fun when you have 6/6 or worse skills. Hard as hell to kill anything, or avoid falling.
|
Akalabeth
10/02/17 03:12 AM
75.155.167.106
|
If your profession is being a Mechwarrior, then it makes sense you'll have a lot of points into the related skills. When I played 3e I never found myself wanting for additional skill points in other areas. Could usually get 4 or 5 gunnery/piloting and some decent small arms/other skills for out of mech combat.
As for hero advancement, I'm guessing the cost to max out a skill is less than the cost to make 3-5 skills good. If players feel the advancement is too slow the GM can simply give them more XP per game
|
ATN082268
10/02/17 10:23 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Quote:
As for hero advancement, I'm guessing the cost to max out a skill is less than the cost to make 3-5 skills good. If players feel the advancement is too slow the GM can simply give them more XP per game
In the MechWarrior 3 RPG, there are now 5 skills for 'Mech Gunnery and Piloting, 6 if you include Sensor Operations. One problem with just doling out more XP to increase skill advancement is that XP can be used for other things like increasing attributes and purchasing/eliminating traits. House ruling everything that XP can be used towards can be a bit tricky unless all the player characters in the game are essentially clones.
To have meaningful skill advancement for the vast majority of player characters, will undoubtedly mean that those which min/max will generally advance quicker. The MW3 RPG almost desperately wanted everyone to start as joe average and stay that way. Are there house rules which will work? Probably but I haven't seen them yet. If somebody has them, please post them here 
|
ghostrider
10/02/17 12:27 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Granted, some house rules need to be agreed upon, but setting up something like a die roll might work there.
Like 1 in 6 chance you can have the fast learner/natural aptitude skill for a given skill.
This would work to help avoid the clone issue, but it does limit player choices.
The times we played the rpg, it was more of finding the mechs, stealing them in some cases, getting parts, or sabotaging enemy facilities, as well as a slew of other things. Being in the mechs was not the focus. And missing a security roll or locking down the computers response to send out an alert was more then just a ooops. Players tended to die when the guards responded, or the local government found out about it. One lead to being hunted by the house leaders for doing such a thing.
And this goes into initial skills as well as after playing a while. We did use funds to limit what you had or could get. Stealing parts was almost required a few times to get a mech working right again. There was no stockpile of actuators for a non house mech. Even across the border adventures happened, with no mech available for use. But when you did use them, you needed the skills to survive.
Outside of the tried and tired method of Solaris 7, have you ever tried the route of trained warrior that lost their graduation gift of a seat in a mech and had to get it back? Or a militia pilot that needed to find or fix a mech outside of buying one?
And the issue atn brought up is even more troublesome, though honestly, it is more realistic. Someone might be much better with missiles then lasers or cannons. And the use of sensors tends to go to the side as not many actually deal with such things, as there isn't much of a basis for it. No rules or even a guideline to suggest what to do with it.
|
wolf_lord_30
10/10/17 07:36 AM
166.216.165.26
|
I've only ever owned 2nd edition and that's what I like to use for my campaign. However, my gaming group ran AToW and tried to get me into it. I wasn't that impressed with the character generation and then we switched to 3e for making the characters. Having some random events was okay, but gimping a character out from the beginning who is supposed to be a mechwarrior or aero jockey was not appreciated. It meant gm intervention to get a character working again within the rules if you had a horrible life event rolled up.
Then there is my personal bias, life already throws enough curveballs my way, I don't need my character getting the same raw deal. I think it's a great way to make quick npcs or for someone who doesn't have a clear vision of what they want, but for a solid character idea where you craft the background and all that, it falls short.
|