Jump to content

FORUMS

How hard is the transition?


8 replies to this topic

#1 Icebound

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 1148 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:56 AM

My friends and I have played DnD 3.0, 3.5, 4th ed. (ugh), and Savage Worlds (Amazing).

My DM has been into MechWarrior for a long time and is eagerly awaiting the release of MWO. I'm wondering if now's the time to push him to try out the Battletech tabletop game.

Just wondering if it's more effort than it's worth, and if it's mainly combat oriented that's a plus because our regular parties always quickly devolve into mass murdering all NPCs within a matter of minutes.

Any selling points I should push when bringing it up?

Edited by Icebound, 20 July 2012 - 08:57 AM.


#2 Sychodemus

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 616 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:26 AM

Battletech has a boardgame element and a roleplaying game element. They can be combined or played separately. BT tends to be much more lethal than most fantasy settings and there isn't nearly as wide a gap between starting and legendary characters.

You know your group better than I do, so I would suggest that you look at the PDFs at the link below and see what you make of it.

http://bg.battletech.com/?page_id=27

#3 AXE MURDERER

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 34 posts
  • LocationBC, Canada

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:37 AM

I've wanted to put some engine grease on my tabletop for so long, but I haven't got the money for it.

#4 Icebound

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 1148 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 11:48 AM

View PostSychodemus, on 20 July 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Battletech has a boardgame element and a roleplaying game element. They can be combined or played separately. BT tends to be much more lethal than most fantasy settings and there isn't nearly as wide a gap between starting and legendary characters.

You know your group better than I do, so I would suggest that you look at the PDFs at the link below and see what you make of it.

http://bg.battletech.com/?page_id=27

I love Savage Worlds and the combat in that is fast and brutal for both Players and NPCs. Thanks for the info.

#5 Congzilla

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 1202 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 03:06 PM

View PostIcebound, on 20 July 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

My friends and I have played DnD 3.0, 3.5, 4th ed. (ugh), and Savage Worlds (Amazing).

My DM has been into MechWarrior for a long time and is eagerly awaiting the release of MWO. I'm wondering if now's the time to push him to try out the Battletech tabletop game.

Just wondering if it's more effort than it's worth, and if it's mainly combat oriented that's a plus because our regular parties always quickly devolve into mass murdering all NPCs within a matter of minutes.

Any selling points I should push when bringing it up?

My selling point for "A Time of War" would be how broadly skilled and varied the PCs come out doing the life path system. It makes them feel more like real people than any other system besides maybe Traveller. The rules are pretty simple with a good amount of depth.

View PostIcebound, on 20 July 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

I love Savage Worlds and the combat in that is fast and brutal for both Players and NPCs. Thanks for the info.

Savage Worls is absolutly horrible compared to Cortex system, the entire system is just flat broken. I hate Savage Worlds with a fire that burns botter than a thousand suns.

#6 Icebound

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 1148 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 03:11 PM

I'm intrigued about this path system you're talking about.

But I do love Savage Worlds just because it's so little math, quick to learn, and quick to roll a character. Plus it doesn't take 10 minutes for one player's turn.

#7 Congzilla

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 1202 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 03:26 PM

View PostIcebound, on 21 July 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

I'm intrigued about this path system you're talking about.

But I do love Savage Worlds just because it's so little math, quick to learn, and quick to roll a character. Plus it doesn't take 10 minutes for one player's turn.

I wouldn't put Savage Worlds against AToW since AToW is fully fleshed out. I put it up against Cortex because Cortex flats beats it like Mike Tyson fighting a 5 year old in a wheelchair.

I liked the life path system a lot because I started to feel like I was sitting there having a conversation with another person and getting to know them as I built my PC. I never even thought about where I was strong or gimped because it felt more like building a real person than the point buy method did.

#8 Evinthal

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGig Harbor, Wa

Posted 21 July 2012 - 03:48 PM

I've played A Time of War a couple of times, but sadly the other person who was playing decided to flake out on the GM and I and now we have a campaign on hiatus. It is a lot more deadly all around than D&D as you have set hit points from the beginning and really the only way to increase it is by raising your BODY attribute, and if you take a single hit you start to get a -1 penalty to your rolls from being injured.

Character creation is daunting if you are not used to the way the life paths work out or even if you use the exp pool method as there are package deals you can take advantage of that give rebate exp. However it is a very flexible and simple system once you get the hang of it. Skills used against NPCs and the like are more like roll offs than rolling against a set DC, but they are exactly that too. Take a character trying to sneak up on another character. Say Character A is the one sneaking and Character B is the one trying to find him. Character A rolls a stealth check against a target number, while character B rolls a perception check against a set target number. If both of them pass the check, you figure out who has the greater margin of success on their roll.

Say character A needs to hit a target number of 8 to succeed, they would roll 2d6 and add them together, then add in any linked attribute modifiers to it, lets say they have a modifier of 2 from training in stealth, and a link attribute modifier of 1, they would then roll 2d6 and add 3 to it, and say they roll a 7 on 2d6, they would get a total of 10. The target number for a stealth check is 8, so character A rolling a 10 total results in a 2 Margin of Success (MoS). Now character B has to roll his perception check, with a base target number of 7, and rolls a 6, but has a +1 bonus to perception from skill training and a +2 bonus from his linked attribute, he would then get a 9 total, with a 2 MoS. Because both characters passes the target number they needed to succeed in their check it then comes down to who had the greater MoS or MoF (yes some skills you can still fail at, but succeed...the other person just has to derp harder than you), because both characters have a 2 MoS Character A is spotted by Character B because they have to beat their opponent on the roll in order to succeed.

#9 Beazle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 359 posts
  • LocationOahu

Posted 22 July 2012 - 12:23 AM

OK, i've run a bunch of Mechwarrior RP games and BT games over the years.

There are a few MAJOR challenges.

1: So, I've got this Gauss Rifle....
It can be very difficult to maintain anything that even remotely looks like game balance when players have access to immense firepower at character creation. The scale between what a character with a mech can do and what a character without a mech can do is so large that they can't really even be compared. It's like Zombie Andre the Giant and Stephen Hawkings getting together for a sumo match. So the challenge becomes comming up with plausible reasons as to why the players have to get out of their mechs.

2: Sorry, but I've got work tomorrow...
BT games aren't know for being quick. Even just a 4 on 4 match with 4 players vs a GM can take a couple hours to play out (longer for new players) and requires a fair amount of prepwork in maps and recordsheets. Unless your the All-Day-Saturday type, you probably won't have time for much else on a typical game night.

3: You put points in what?
It can be difficult to convince players that they have to put points in things other than their mech skills. If every player becomes a master carpenter, then most of your NPC will start to look like nails. It can get pretty frustrating to be a GM with a neat new NPC you want to RP, when the players decide to hit his house with a couple of LRM salvos at 2am.


Over the years i've tried a few differnt techniques to handle these problems. I've generally prefered to go one of two routes.

Either each player makes 2 characters, (one for in Mech combat, and one for out of Mech combat) or we just go easy on the RP side.

The first option give the GM flexibility in designing adventures that won't kill Mech pilots on the ground, or make somebody's super-spy character into humanoid-ish grease stain on a battlefield. I haven't actually done this one in a couple of years. Most of the time, if my group wanted a fair to large amount of RPing, i went with a different system. Sure, there is a good set of rules that will allow you to run a decent RP campaign in the BT universe, but for me BT is all about the mechs.

The second option is the one i go with no, even when i play online via MegaMek. I use my own house rules to stream line all the RP aspects of running a BT campaign, and focus on the glorius mech on mech action. I'll give you a quick run down on some of them.

At what you would normally call "character creation" I put the players in charge of unit creation. I grab which ever one of the Mercenaries books is closests to the top of my pile at the moment, and divide up the points between each player. Then each player either picks, or is assigned a unit "role". Who ever has a specific role has to use his part of the points (C-Bills, or whatever your using) to acquire assets that will help him accomplish his role, in addition to whatever share of the fighting force he wants to be responsible for. I make up the roles each time based on the number of players I'm going to have.

Here is how one of my current groups is broken down as an example. (names have been changed to protect the guilty)

Alfred is the unit Commander. The unit commander is responsible for EVERYTHING, but primarily responsible for nothing. He's allowed to assist with any operation, but, (despite his title) doesn't have final say in much except wether or not to take a contract. Alfred started with a lance of medium mechs, enough techs to support it (barely) a couple of scouts/agents and a transport helicopter.

Buford is the units Recon/Intel officer. This gives him final say in deciding what the scouting priorities will be, as well as handling any RPing for information that happens. He's started out with 3 lights and a medium, along with enough techs to do basic maintenance on them. He also runs 8 scout/agents, and a pair of light scout vehicles that help with comm relays.

Cletus is the Line Commander. He's just in it for the Big Guns. His only part in the decision making process is the allocation of captured/salvaged/purchased mechs and hardware. He started out with 2 meds and 2 heavies, along with enough techs to keep them running, and take care of most battle damage.

Dingus is the Support officer. He determines priorities when it comes to repairs and supplies. If the unit runs out of SRMs before the final fight, it's his fault. If somebody's mech isn't up and ready to go, yup, it's his fault again. He's also in charge of the actual contract negotiations (within limits set by the commander) He started with 3 meds and a light, and more techs than you can shake a stick at, along with a couple of flatbed trucks.

To make this game work, I had each player assign a priority (A through F) to each of the 4 positions (which then became a Skill Strategy, Recon, Tactics, and Repair) as well as Piloting and Gunnery. A got a 3 for a target number, B a 4, C a 5, D a 5, E a 6 and F a 6. The rest of the players units were given standard "regular" ratings, and no additional skills.

Everything that can't be resolved with a quick bit of RP, is handled by one or more quick die rolls. Everything outside of mech combat is kept quick and abstract.

At the end of each session, i assign Exp to each person based on how well they accomplised their respective rolls. This means that even if my Tech officer kills a Victor with a Commando, he won't get any bonus Exp for it, but if the Commando was the only mech in working order for that fight, he'll get a penalty. (Poor Dingus :( ) Skill advancement is a simple point system from one of the books ( i forget which one it's in)

If one of the players dies, his position becomes open for any player who wants it. If more than one wants it, then it goes to the one with the highest applicable skill. In the result of a skill tie, the one who put the highest priority in it. If it's still a tie, I accept bribes. The player who died makes a new character using the above rules, and gets stuck in the position that is now open.

Anything that falls into a grey area for responsibilities is handled by group consensus. If the players take to long to make a decision, I have the Commander make one on the spot (usually while somebody hums the Jeopardy theme).

All of this makes for a simple, fast campaign that focuses on the Mech action (and tanks too, but you know what i mean). There aren't any desciptions of seedy bars, I don't do impressions of maniacal geniuses, and nobody RP's character quirks. It's all just misssion briefs, game plans, and mayhem.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users