Battletech RPG

[RenleyRenfield]

...

(And, off the cuff, If I were to set up a whole new MW RPG, I might go for something light, with skills only and no attributes, with a moderate sized list of skills that are bought at target number levels like the tactical game as a starting point.)

I am toying with PBTA as the core roleplay side. Oddly enough, its 2d6 like BT wargame is. And so if I am clever I can make Gunnery and Piloting skill values inform the PBTA roleplay side "success with complication" thresholds. I would need to go over the min and max values the wargame had, and see where those thresholds are for PBTA. Then , well, supposedly the rules would be fair and balanced no matter how you made your character.

This is what Draw Steel did, so I has some ideas on how it might work...

 

[MacDhomnuill]

I played Mac Warrior first edition, but the rules never really stuck with my players so we switched over to using classic traveler which also uses a 2D6 resolution mechanic that is extremely similar to BattleTech resolution system. I don’t want every edition of the role-playing game produced all the way through destiny. First and second edition, we’re basically the same game with tweaks third edition use D10 resolution mechanic and was very different published by fan pro. fourth edition ATOW is pure insanity, it is so utterly complicated to produce characters ( there is an option to just use templates) but the game system itself is actually pretty simple. Destiny is a solid game but the inclusion of simplified mech combat thats somewhere between alpha strike and full Battle tech still mystifies me. For me personally I’ve never really been into long campaigns and none of my players ever were either. It was mostly one shots or 3 to 4 session long shots, first or second edition are both fine to run.

 

[Kannik]

I am toying with PBTA as the core roleplay side. Oddly enough, its 2d6 like BT wargame is. And so if I am clever I can make Gunnery and Piloting skill values inform the PBTA roleplay side "success with complication" thresholds. I would need to go over the min and max values the wargame had, and see where those thresholds are for PBTA. Then , well, supposedly the rules would be fair and balanced no matter how you made your character.

Hmm, taking a standard, say piloting roll of 5+ being a clean/full success (83.3% success), and flipping it around to figure out the plus to make it a PbtA 10+, would yield a modifier of +5. Higher than most PbtA modifiers, but then BT doesn't have partial success, so making that a +3 or so would fit in line with your "well competent capability" rolls in PbtA. (A +3 gives at least a partial success 91.7% of the time, and a clean success 58.3% of the time.) Might fit in quite well indeed! And a bunch of playbooks each with special abilities could make for a fun RPG experience that distinguishes even the 'mech portion of the game from standard BT play.

(As an aside, I've really been digging Legends in the Mist for how it uses the PbtA base in a neat new way. No skills/attributes/etc, but instead a series of thematic list of tags where each tag that applies is a +1 to the roll. Very different than standard BT with skills, but could work if there was player buy-in.)

So the question then would be how could 7-9 work on the BT battlefield? Easy might be 10+ is full weapon damage, 7-9 is partial damage? (Half damage for direct fire weapons, -4 to cluster chart for missiles/etc? Something like that?) Does run the risk of having BT battles take even longer than they do now... so flip it? 7-9 is full damage, 10+ does bonus damage?

Alternately could do the more standard RPG side of things, where 7-9 does full damage but brings in some complication. Might be tough to adequately come up with continual complications, though, as you'll do a lot more rolling than during the out-of-'mech portion of the game.

(And for all I know, Destiny maybe already works this way? I haven't had a chance to do a good read through of it yet. Heck, this is quickly written while I'm supposed to be working. Shhhh, don't tell anyone.)

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Hmm, good points. So let's see here...

Piloting skill = 5
piloting modifiers (based on circumstances) = +0 to +5
it looks like the lowers a Piloting skill can go is 3, which is fine for PBTA as that is just 2 less on the roll, which is typical for PBTA.

then.. roll 2d6 added to get equal to or over PS+mods.

Looking at the piloting skill modifiers, it looks like +1 and +2 are most common, which is same for PBTA.

That means that most social/roleplay rolls should also about +1 or +2

Now, that is ascending "Negatives", so i think... we treat that as either...
- Option A) raises the threshold, which starts a 5 for Piloting skill of 5; thus 5-7 is partial success)... so +2 means that 5-7 becomes 7-9 (not as crazy as it seems, as characters get bonuses to the roll, so it can add up to over 12)
or
- Option B) is treated as a negative on the player's roll (your skill value is just like D&D, treated as a stat with an associated bonus, with 5 being +0, 4 being +1, 3 being +2) ... so +2 is a "+2 negatives affecting you" thus reduces your roll result by 2 (this is how Legend in the Mist works as well).


So option A lets us use the normal BT values and just adjusts where your base threshold is based on your skill. but the roll and add remains identical in the wargame and in the roleplay.

option B is a hard switch from how you roll and add versus just a normal pbta values using modifiers only... your base skill sets your bonus to the roll, and situations set your negative modifiers to the roll.

 

[Kannik]

Personally I would bite the PCC go with Option B and the full PbtA method. Having to shift not just a single target number but a range has more of a cognitive load (7-9 becomes 8-10 becomes 10-12, etc). I'd rather keep the target number(s) the same and just change the base skill to it's own modifier and go from there, flipping the standard BT modifiers around so that the +s are -s, and the -s are +s.

As with the gunnery, it then becomes a choice of whether a 7-9 during BT tactical play equals a success and a 10+ is a success with a bonus (which I think on the whole would run better*), or whether only 10+ is a clean success and 7-9 is success with some sort of penalty. For the former, it's easy: A standard Pilot has a skill of +2. For the latter, well, probably want the roll to fall at least mid-way through the partial success range lest it get too punishing, so a skill +3 or +4 would be better.

From the above, and following the same concepts, that would mean standard Gunnery skills would be +3 and +4 or +5.

* Alternately, it could be easy when things move to the BT tabletop could also just drop the narrative bits of the PbtA and just say a 7+ is a success; consequences and rewards are already built into the standard BT system. And it's not like Lancer hasn't set a precedent for this either, with a different vibe/resolution between the two types of action.

That said, if playing in a type of campaign where the PCs are expected to be novel-level exceptional cases, then a 10+ gaining a bonus remains a cool option. One easy option for gunnery could be that on a 10+ the player gets to shift the location rolled by 1 after it's rolled. So if the location roll came up as a 4, the player could shift it to a 3 or 5. Could get fancy too and say that on a 12+ they can shift it by up to 2. Other options could be some bonus damage, a bonus to crit rolls, less heat generated, or save them to generate a narrative effect (aka "The script writer is on our side!").

 

[payn]

I find it a little strange that the piloting and gunnery skills would have any effect outside of a mech. I like the PbtA idea and would probably just come up with some unique playbooks and a custom feature for making one and roll with that for outside of mech play.

 

[TheHand]

I’ve actually never played any PbTA games, but the concept seems interesting! I’d be curious to hear how it ends up working.

 

[Jahydin]

@payn
Thanks for the history lesson!

Looks like I had the Second Edition (still the best cover art IMO) and thought the system was pretty slick, but couldn't get anyone interested to try it out with me.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I find it a little strange that the piloting and gunnery skills would have any effect outside of a mech. I like the PbtA idea and would probably just come up with some unique playbooks and a custom feature for making one and roll with that for outside of mech play.

Honestly, this is the right answer pretty much. No need to mix since switch is from roleplay to wargame. My post above is just thought experiment in case there was a simple same-same rule that could cover both. Though, I do not want to add 'success with complications' to the wargame. It's fine as is.

I'll post up my like to the PBTA rules here at some point. See what folks think

 

[Kannik]

I find it a little strange that the piloting and gunnery skills would have any effect outside of a mech. I like the PbtA idea and would probably just come up with some unique playbooks and a custom feature for making one and roll with that for outside of mech play.

While it may be less frequent, chases, or RP-based mech challenges could still happen. Gunnery too, like say a Robin Hood type tourney or you've stolen an Savannah Master and are in a mad dash through the streets of Solaris trying to stop a mobster boss and you have that one medium laser to try and take him out... that kind of situation would be great to run with full PbtA levels of success vs just a hit, do 5 damage kind of thing.

So swapping even the tactical stuff to work on the same RPG/PbtA 2d6+skill level type of roll keeps things consistent, and you're only dropping the 7-9|10+ distinction and in a full tactical BT environment it becomes 7+.

(Or as noted above, can keep the 7-9|10+, with 10+ being a bonus to the standard BT success.)

Honestly, this is the right answer pretty much. No need to mix since switch is from roleplay to wargame. My post above is just thought experiment in case there was a simple same-same rule that could cover both. Though, I do not want to add 'success with complications' to the wargame. It's fine as is.

I'll post up my like to the PBTA rules here at some point. See what folks think

Cool, keen to see it!