In reply to:

---

where the PCs are no more "heroic" than anyone else

---

In reply to:

---

The system as-is fits very nicely into the MW universe with very minor modifications

---

In reply to:

---

Inner Sphere Mechwarriors are (numerically speaking) 1-in-a-100 million individuals. Allowing the PCs to be "heroic" seems fitting. I mean, when there's trillions of people in the Inner Sphere and tens of thousands of mechs, average joes ain't going to be piloting mechs. The same applies to virtually any frontline combatant position in a House (or merc) military unit.

---

When I said that PCs are no more heroic, I suppose I should have clarified. Certainly a Mechwarrior (whether PC or NPC) will have access to things that "the average joe" doesn't--like Mechs, and how to use'em!

But I'd argue that this in itself doesn't make them any more "heroic"-- just lucky to be a MechWarrior. And compared to another MechWarrior, s/he should be on roughly equal ground. S/he shouldn't inherently (because s/he's a PC) be able to withstand more damage, deal more damage, nore learn more things. S/he should be no less "mortal" than anyone else; s/he should die just as easily from gunshots as the next guy.

This, I suppose, is more closely what I meant by PCs being no more "heroic" than NPCs--they're not "superheros" (although the "average joe" probably would consider them to be).

In reply to:

---

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Calm down and re-read the post.

All I was trying to say was that a D20 has a 1/20 chance of coming up any particular result, so you can't just grab a copy of MW3 and use a D20 instead of 2D10 because the statistics are different.

---

Ah, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I said, "I'm thinking about using the Traveller T20 rules with some minor modifications as a new rules base for a MechWarrior campaign."

No where did I say I was going to us MW3 rules and use a D20 instead of two D10's.

And any use of the word "plagarize" is likely to quickly heat the discussion.

In reply to:

---

Even modifying an existing system is a fair bit of effort.

---

Very true, which is why I asked if anyone had already done it. I had the selfish intent of hopefully learning from someone else's experience and benefiting from his/her playtesting.

If not, I'll do it myself (which seems to be the case).

One of the reasons I've chosen to go with T20 rather than buy MW3 is because the rules-set is based on D20, which will make it easy to teach others in my group who are already familiar with the rules (I'm going to teach them CBT for the occasional Mech battle, which is more teaching than I care to do without a license!).

In reply to:

---

Like other RPGers, I *LOATHE* and *DETEST* level-based RPGs.

---

I think it would be more realistic to add "some", or even "many", before "other". As is, your statement "assumes too much".

In reply to:

---

I am 1 EXP from my next level. Walking along a pathway ... and suddenly ascend to my next level, gaining X hit-points on the spot as well as developing better fighting skills and special abilities if I'm lucky.

---

In reply to:

---

I prefer games like ShadowRun and MW3 where you get "Exerience Points" that you spend to improve yourself instead of waiting to hit the next "Level". Again, that's just me.

---

In reply to:

---

Personal combat should always be lethal. Unless the opposition has has guns with "Bang!" flags. The MW3 system, whilst not perfect, isn't too bad either.

---

In reply to:

---

As Cray said, MechWarriors are supposed to be more heroic than anyone else. In a universe of trillions upon trillions of souls, only a few thousand become 'MechWarrors.

---

In reply to:

---

Finally, as I said before, as long as everyone in your group understands the rules and is having fun, your job as GM is done.

---

Exactly why I'm going to try a conversion to T20.

In any event, I certainly didn't mean to bring this to a debate, as I've seen enough flame wars about D20 in BT/MW forums on the CBT board. My intent was only to discover whether someone had already tried the conversion and had any pointers (if not a full-fledged conversion doc) to share.

In reply to:

---

But I'd argue that this in itself doesn't make them any more "heroic"-- just lucky to be a MechWarrior.

---

In reply to:

---

And compared to another MechWarrior, s/he should be on roughly equal ground. S/he shouldn't inherently (because s/he's a PC) be able to withstand more damage, deal more damage, nore learn more things. S/he should be no less "mortal" than anyone else; s/he should die just as easily from gunshots as the next guy.

This, I suppose, is more closely what I meant by PCs being no more "heroic" than NPCs

---

In reply to:

---

Any RPG must take into consideration character advancement. Whether it's lots of little steps (as is usual in Shadowrun, MW3, or SW D6), or fewer big steps (like in D20), the end result is basically the same. Some prefer the former, some the latter; I don't have a particular preference for one over the other, as they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I enjoy playing both types of games.

---

In reply to:

---

Nightward wrote:
am 1 EXP from my next level. Walking along a pathway, I happen to see a bug crawling around. Knowing that each bug I kill is worth 1 EXP,

---

In reply to:

---

Zensunni wrote:
Even in these games, you can choose to spend the points quickly (possibly even in the middle of a session? horror!) after earning them thereby gaining a little advancement, or save them (not sure if you can in Shadowrun or MW3

---

In reply to:

---

Saying BT military PCs should be comparable to NPCs when NPCs includes the trillions of farmers and average yokels in the Inner Sphere just doesn't work for me. I don't buy it. If you want to be an average human, fine, just don't expect to be a mechwarrior, who are 1-in-100 million individuals.

---

In reply to:

---

Second, compared to everyone else...tell you what, how about I beat on you with brass knuckles for a while, and then beat on an elite, 1-in-a-billion soldier for a while and see who falls down first? The difference between you and the soldier might not be significant vs. bullets, but I suspect a "commando" (to use a generic super soldier term) would be able to handle more physical abuse (in some form or another) than you.

And he would be stronger and faster than you and at least 90% of the population. And would have above average intelligence.

Saying BT military PCs should be comparable to NPCs when NPCs includes the trillions of farmers and average yokels in the Inner Sphere just doesn't work for me. I don't buy it. If you want to be an average human, fine, just don't expect to be a mechwarrior, who are 1-in-100 million individuals.

---

LOL... A gun shot should hurt you no matter who you are. But the example you give involving brass knuckles would involve subdual damage in T20, which is handled differently than lethal damage. Suffice it to say that in T20 the more experienced you are (i.e., higher level), the more subdual damage you can take; and classes with training in physical combat (e.g., Marine) can on average take more subdual damage per level than those that aren't (e.g., Academic).

And while a MechWarrior is likely to have excellent hand-eye coordination and all the skills (i.e., appropriate piloting and gunnery) involved in using a Mech, this DOESN'T translate into "stronger and faster than...at least 90% of the population," (are you sure you're not playing a DnD Fighter in disguise as a MW? ). Among others, I'd expect a bodybuilder to be stronger, and a dancer to be faster. Given your "1-in-100 million" stats (which I think are a BIT off... do you have a quote for that?), I think there are MANY more dancers and bodybuilders than there are MechWarriors. MechWarriors are better than most at what they do best, piloting Mechs and firing the guns. They don't have a monopoly on strength or speed.

I think it should be obvious that I'm not trying to detail how the T20 system works, as that wasn't the purpose of my original post. I think this whole tangent regarding "heroics" has really been blown out of proportion from a single line in which I was just trying to get across that the PCs of T20 aren't the "indestructible demigods" of PCs in DnD, able to kill 100 NPCs and fall off 100 ft building with barely a scratch to show (which seems to be the BIGGEST fear among D20 opponents).

All I'll say further about this aspect is that, in my opinion, T20 maintains a realistic level of RPing in a fairly hard-science fictional setting; one that I think fits in very nicely with the BT/MW universe.

In reply to:

---

So, here's the situation that came up: a PC is stuck on a wizard's ship for months. He has nothing to do, no monsters to fight, just sit and read on the wizard's library's subject (mostly astronomy/astrology). In d20, how would I have the PC raise his skill in "Lore: Astrology"? He was a good 10K experience points from leveling. Is the only way to raise a skill in d20 to give the PC another level?

---

As far as I'm aware, the only way to raise a skill is to increase in level.

In the games in which I play, a PC wouldn't be able to increase a skill unless s/he could justify the increase. In this case, you could use the time spent here as justification for the increase later.

You could give him temporary bonuses to the skill, with the thought that he just couldn't commit them to memory.

Yet another option would be to allow him to take a rank or two now, with the understanding that it would come from his pool of points at the next level.

A last option would be if he had just previously gone up in level, perhaps allowing him to "take back" some points he just used. This would assume that he allowed himself to become distracted with the intense studying of this the new information, in the process forgetting the particulars of the other skill.

That this isn't handled officially in the rules (as far as I know) is clearly an issue with the system. But you can always improvise and make changes, and the couple options above would seem to fit the circumstances without drastically affecting game balance, making other players unhappy, or opening a can of worms.

In reply to:

---

Given your "1-in-100 million" stats (which I think are a BIT off... do you have a quote for that?),

---

In reply to:

---

Now, if I'm a gubmint sort who has about 14 slots to fill and 280 million people to hire from, I can afford to be very picky. Further, if this is for a group of soldiers who will be providing the first line of defense for my nation (along with maybe 150 tank crewmen and 300 infantrymen), I have good cause to pick 14 REALLY good soldiers.

---

This is where I see a problem. This "pool" of 280 million people from which to pick the best doesn't exist.

It's my understanding that the position of MechWarrior, by and large, is a hereditary one. 'Mech's are passed down in families, the children raised from birth to be MechWarriors. Those that don't prove themselves are shoved aside to perform other duties, while the best become true MechWarriors. But there aren't MechWarrior "tryouts" for anyone else. While one must prove oneself, it's still a position one must be born into (there are exceptions, but few and far between). As such, being a MechWarrior doesn't make it a given that you're quicker, brighter or stronger than non-MechWarrior's; just that you're quicker, brighter, and stronger than your brothers, sisters and cousins.

In reply to:

---

So, however you phrase it, mechwarriors should be above average in virtually every aspect, and extremely good in some - rather like pilot astronauts, who are "merely" 1 in 2 or 3 million individuals (in the current US population and astronaut corps).

---

In reply to:

---

It's my understanding that the position of MechWarrior, by and large, is a hereditary one

---

In reply to:

---

Why should they be above average at using computers, swimming, jumping, bluffing, singing, using a pistol, hiding, riding a horse, gambling, bargaining, or piloting an Aerotech?

---

Why? Because mechwarriors have:
1) Exceptional hand-eye coordination. This gives them a huge head start in hundreds of physical skills over the average person, from pistol shooting to piloting to a dozen sports. A little practice and they'll be way ahead of the average joe.
2) Good physical health - it's an odd military that lets in the sickly and weak, and even BT militaries will keep out mech owners who can't pass physical fitness tests. It's unlikely you can get to a good state of physical strength that makes the military happy without some participation in sports or exercise. Fresh graduate recruits will be in better shape than the average person, just like a modern soldier out of basic training.
3) Exceptional hand-eye coordination needs mentioning again. It affects so many physical skills.
4) A good brain. Piloting a mech is not just about putting crosshairs on a target or spinning the steering wheel - that's the easy part. Being a mechwarrior means understanding what happened when the mech starts to behave wrong or is damaged and how to keep the mech doing its job despite that. Mechs are walking, shooting computers so filled with computers that even their armor is laced with computers. They are the most complicated war machines on the ground, and mechwarriors are the ones who make them work when in good maintenance or when catastrophically damaged. Anyone smart enough to do that has learned a great deal about computers, high-tech load bearing structures, the material and mechanical properties of contractile polymers, the behavior of fusion engines, munitions, etc. This is exactly the same as pilot astronauts, who started out passing the physical fitness requirements of military personnel (and usually build themselves up further - big muscles help with G-forces), passed the hand-eye coordination requirements of pilots, passed the engineering and mathematical requirements of pilots, and then proved themselves exceptional enough to be pilot astronauts. And astronauts need a whole 'nother level of engineering and scientific understanding to handle spaceships, because the piloting part is easy (computers do nearly everything, like on mechs). Astronauts, like mechwarriors, need to know what to do when things go wrong, and that's where their college degrees and brainpower come in.
5) Mechwarriors who aspire to be more than a private are going to have above average leadership skills. Most will have those anyway, just because mechwarriors end up in command in the presence of conventional troops. Mechwarriors are also portrayed like today's fighter jocks: generally gregarious, high social skill "aces." So, yeah, I'd expect them to have better than average people skills.

In reply to:

---

Mercenaries, Marines, any number of others are just as likely to have extensive training in that.

---

In reply to:

---

In my opinion, it is exactly because of the complete focus of their training since birth on the use of 'Mechs that they're likely to be less than average in other aspects

---

In reply to:

---

That Marine is likely to be a better shot.

---

In reply to:

---

That Academic is likely to be more knowledgeable about military history.

---

In reply to:

---

And that Merchant is likely to know more about the military build-up in the adjacent sector.

---

In reply to:

---

Hereditary mechwarriors were the norm in 3025; they're a dying breed in 3067. In the Clans, every mechwarrior is exceptional, the end result of lifelong training and breeding.

---

In reply to:

---

Simply put, average people do not become adventurers.

---

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In reply to:

---

Simply put, average people do not become adventurers.

---

In reply to:

---

so there you go, for a realistic type RPG, like MW, a XP point system is good. where as a fantisy RPG, like dnd, where no one cares, level up good.

---