Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
BattleTech
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4679004" data-attributes="member: 40961"><p>I didn't mean "4E-ize" in some literal sense. I meant that I would love it if battletech were rewritten with some of the same... design and style and philosophy as 4e. 4e tended to prune away at 3e, using a simple metric- if something was good for gameplay, it should stay or be enhanced. If something wasn't, it should go away. Things like rules that exist purely to make the game world more realistic only deserved to stay if that added realism actually made the gameplay better. Realism for the sake of more accurate simulation was rejected. And ultimately the idea that "fun" in an RPG is rolling a die and seeing if its high enough was rejected. "Fun" was instead identified as residing in tactical decisions.</p><p> </p><p>That's a stance that a tabletop wargame should embrace, probably much further than an RPG does. I'd like a battletech designed to be playable much faster, with rules that exist to create a more "realistic" mech simulation deleted and replaced with rules designed to create a more tactical and more fun mech simulation.</p><p> </p><p>But maybe I'm a little spoiled, since I tend to play next generation wargames.</p><p> </p><p>As for the whole "length of game" issue, I'm going to nip this in the bud. Much like earlier forum warfare about the length of combat at high level in 3e, I really just don't care if you claim to have anecdotal experience of large games of battletech being played in *merely* five hours. I have enough experience playing battletech that I feel confident in my assessment of battletech games typically lasting much longer than that in a company on company game. I have no desire to get into yet another weird, machismo-laden debate where everyone assures me that THEY play battletech in ridiculously short times, and obviously I, and everyone else I've even known, and the vast majority of people I've talked to online, are somehow aberrantly slow. You are not going to convince me of that. Don't try.</p><p> </p><p>To give you an example of the sorts of problems I have with battletech, consider this: To fire an SRM 6, you need to do the following:</p><p> </p><p>Determine to hit number, based on weapon range. This requires consulting a chart for the weapon, your own modifiers, and your opponents modifiers. You may have to look up two additional sets of information in the process, one for yourself, and one for your opponent.</p><p> </p><p>Roll to hit.</p><p> </p><p>If you hit, roll for how many individual missiles hit, consulting the relevant chart. Your typical result will be a 4.</p><p> </p><p>Roll locations for each missile. This requires a minimum of one roll, and as many as 8 rolls (one for location, if it went internal one for whether a critical occured and how many, and two rolls for the specific slot that went critical, grand total eight rolls possible on one location check for one missile).</p><p> </p><p>If critical hits occurred, additional piloting rolls may be required. These in turn may spawn additional rolls, depending on damage taken when falling.</p><p> </p><p>Now, that's a larger weapon system. And if you're firing it early game, you will ONLY need to make about 6 die rolls to resolve it (one to hit, one for number of missiles, average four missile locations). Many other weapons, such as lasers, require only two die rolls, plus possible critical rolls. But the SRM 6 also isn't the worst weapon in the game for time sinkage either.</p><p> </p><p>The tactical additions to the game created by all of these die rolls and charts is not sufficient to justify this degree of... <em>stuff.</em> The tactical tricks in battletech don't even come from this sort of thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4679004, member: 40961"] I didn't mean "4E-ize" in some literal sense. I meant that I would love it if battletech were rewritten with some of the same... design and style and philosophy as 4e. 4e tended to prune away at 3e, using a simple metric- if something was good for gameplay, it should stay or be enhanced. If something wasn't, it should go away. Things like rules that exist purely to make the game world more realistic only deserved to stay if that added realism actually made the gameplay better. Realism for the sake of more accurate simulation was rejected. And ultimately the idea that "fun" in an RPG is rolling a die and seeing if its high enough was rejected. "Fun" was instead identified as residing in tactical decisions. That's a stance that a tabletop wargame should embrace, probably much further than an RPG does. I'd like a battletech designed to be playable much faster, with rules that exist to create a more "realistic" mech simulation deleted and replaced with rules designed to create a more tactical and more fun mech simulation. But maybe I'm a little spoiled, since I tend to play next generation wargames. As for the whole "length of game" issue, I'm going to nip this in the bud. Much like earlier forum warfare about the length of combat at high level in 3e, I really just don't care if you claim to have anecdotal experience of large games of battletech being played in *merely* five hours. I have enough experience playing battletech that I feel confident in my assessment of battletech games typically lasting much longer than that in a company on company game. I have no desire to get into yet another weird, machismo-laden debate where everyone assures me that THEY play battletech in ridiculously short times, and obviously I, and everyone else I've even known, and the vast majority of people I've talked to online, are somehow aberrantly slow. You are not going to convince me of that. Don't try. To give you an example of the sorts of problems I have with battletech, consider this: To fire an SRM 6, you need to do the following: Determine to hit number, based on weapon range. This requires consulting a chart for the weapon, your own modifiers, and your opponents modifiers. You may have to look up two additional sets of information in the process, one for yourself, and one for your opponent. Roll to hit. If you hit, roll for how many individual missiles hit, consulting the relevant chart. Your typical result will be a 4. Roll locations for each missile. This requires a minimum of one roll, and as many as 8 rolls (one for location, if it went internal one for whether a critical occured and how many, and two rolls for the specific slot that went critical, grand total eight rolls possible on one location check for one missile). If critical hits occurred, additional piloting rolls may be required. These in turn may spawn additional rolls, depending on damage taken when falling. Now, that's a larger weapon system. And if you're firing it early game, you will ONLY need to make about 6 die rolls to resolve it (one to hit, one for number of missiles, average four missile locations). Many other weapons, such as lasers, require only two die rolls, plus possible critical rolls. But the SRM 6 also isn't the worst weapon in the game for time sinkage either. The tactical additions to the game created by all of these die rolls and charts is not sufficient to justify this degree of... [I]stuff.[/I] The tactical tricks in battletech don't even come from this sort of thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
BattleTech
Top