While I am still working on weird west rules and have setup for test games, THIS time the distraction was my son's fault - he found some random Alpha Strike boxes in a local hobby shop. He plays a lot of Mechwarrior Online/Battletech 5 with me on PC
So we painted them up and were off to the rules cupboard in the shed.
I'm not a huge fan of Alpha Strike - which always seemed to miss the mark for me. For fast-play rules, it seemed to retain a LOT of complexity and modifiers while losing too much of the cinematic flavour of Battletech. 178 pages is probably not fast play or 'lite'. That said, Alpha Strike works out of the box.
Like 40K, it's obvious the universe and not the rules are the drawcard. Find 10 Alpha Strike players and you'll find 10 different house rules, so I'm not alone in the feeling the rules need to be 'fixed.' Even the most basic stuff - one of the most common critical hits on the crit table is "nothing happens." FFS - I rolled box cars (3% chance) to get here and now I get to roll again just for a high chance of ... nothing? It's just bad design. The issue is that 'fixing' things often messes with the balance. Changing and smoothing the dice rolls probably screws light mechs. Making deadlier crits might harm heavier mechs.
For all its faults, Alpha Strike IS Battletech and comes ready-to-go with dry erase stat cards.OG Battletech delivers, but is just so 80s gluggy I wouldn't inflict it on adult friends let alone a 10 year old. Recording 100s of hits - that's why I own a PC.
Heavy Gear recently went through a 'simplification' which also missed the mark for me. It's just roll d6s against a number (say 4+) to count successes, but.... you can add or remove dice AND change the target (to say 3+ or 5+) AND sometimes extra dice that exceed the result can add to the result. Add that to the fact there might be (checks notes) 61 combat modifiers... it's really not that simple either. On the upside, there is usually only a handful of hitpoints to record - albeit no heat rules if you wanted to use it for BT.
Both these games are (like Infinity) written by I presume frustrated RPGers who made a wargame. This is obvious when you compare how similar they are to a genuine RPG, Lancer.
Lancer annoys me by using symbols instead of words (if you have 250+ pages of rules, there are ways to save word count besides replacing the word range with a weird line - like, say the 150 pages worth of fluff...). That's needless obscurity. It also seems overly fixated on elemental damage types (fire, electricity etc). But it is an unapologetic RPG, so.... *shrugs.* My copy was free so I suspect it is the older 1st edition.
While Lancer is squarely aimed at Gundam, it's got got all the mecha bells and whistles including heat, which is incurred by taking extra quick actions (shots, speed boosts etc). It's also better on recording than BT although that's a low bar to step over: basically you have say 8 HP but once they are gone you roll against a "crit" table which might kill your, stun you or remove weapons etc. If you have a hero mech you might have 3 crits i.e. you can repeat this process a few times, i.e. you get to take 8HP + a crit, and you only die on the 3rd one. Basically, potentially up to 24HP... Whereas a "grunt" mech probably dies on the first crit (8HP) which is more cinematic - heroes last longer. However you could perhaps change it based on size rather than pilot, so a assault mech has 4 crits, a heavy 3, a medium 2, a light 1 etc etc. These rules are some of the most interesting for ideas and I recommend adding it to your collection.
Steel Rifts. This uses dice to record hitpoints. I.e. a medium might have d6 armour and d6 structure. Like Alpha Strike, weapons have a power value. They roll on d6 and any 3 or less score a hit. This time there is only 5 combat modifiers, not Alpha Strike's 18. Each hit reduces the dice i.e. a 2 damage hit means you flip the armour d6 from the 6 side to the 4 side. It's very minimalist and is actually a wargame. The key rules could probably be fit on 3 pages. It's like the author knows how to explain things to others. I did find it a bit bland; but if you want to get your mechs out on the table this gets a recommendation.
In comparison the others (BT, HG, Lancer) are more interested in the fluff: their approach seems to be if the rules clarity needs to be sacrificed in the name of fluff/backstory, so be it.
Clarity > Fluff
Something I've been thinking of when fiddling with my Weird West adaption is what Savage Worlds (a RPG!) does right. It doesn't focus on the fluff, but the in-game effect. For example, both fire damage and poison damage might have the same effect - i.e. a persistent status say causing an extra damage roll next turn.
They don't need separate rules "Poison" and "Fire". A single rule "Persistent Damage" or whatever. We've just halved the special rules. You can attach what flavour fluff you want to it elsewhere...
"The gunslinger fires deadly poisoned bullets that cause great suffering in her prey" you can stick this in the character description or whatever, but next to the weapon you just put "Persistent Damage".
"The flaming sword Belial cleaves undead in two, their pyres serving as a warning for their necromantic brethren" Again, the blurb can go elsewhere - but the weapon stats merely need to state Persistent Damage. Simples!
What does the weapon or item DO? What range? What damage? Anything special i.e. armour piercing? This should be as clear and succinct as possible, sharing rules with similar effects rather than making up uniquely named but identical rules for each weapon.
For example, in Alpha Strike, both the Energy and CASE abilities means ammo does not explode.
In other words: It's the same rule.
Let's make a single rule and call it "Safe Ammo." But because Alpha Strike is so wedded to its fluff, they use twice as many rules names than they need.
Most RPG rules are laid out like a game of "hunt for the useful information"...
I reckon for 95% of RPG authors, the 'rules' of actually playing in their imaginary world are an unfortunate necessity that gets in their way of spewing out more fluff. Their motto: ...Never use one word when you can use ten; plus a paragraph of fluff...
....ok rant over, while I am in my rules cupboard...
Gamma Wolves. Another actual wargame. The same author as Steel Rifts - this one is a bit more complex. I love the post-apoc-mecha 'game world' which helped give me ideas for my homebrew post-apoc-WW2 tanks 'game world.' A bit heavier on recording. Pilots and mechs can accrue 'stress' which allow pseudo BT heat. It has more interesting mechanics - you can sacrifice shooting successes to aim for body parts; when hit, you get a free reactive short move; and there is the 'war clock' - a countdown caused by stress/ammo use etc that forces all mechs to withdraw- acts like whole force morale. I think I've seen this war clock mechanic in horror/zombie games - never mecha ones though! I like the idea and I've used something similar in my modern air combat games (where fuel/ordnance reserves are a big deal).
I'd recommend Gamma Wolves as 'interesting' but I'd say Steel Rifts is slicker and quicker if you just want an excuse to push mechs around on the table.
Proof for the doubters: I'm actually still progressing on my weird west theme.....Verdict: Well I continue to work on my homebrew rules, but despite my grouching I'm first bringing out the Alpha Strike quick-play rules: main reason is they came with printed dry-erase mecha cards all ready to go; but I have Steel Rifts on standby...
May I heartily recommend Chris McDowall's MAC Attack?
ReplyDeleteChris is an RPG writer, but his motto is: "Paragraphs are for people who are too cowardly for bullet points"
MAC Attack is ~64 pages and hits a real sweet spot of rules complexity.
I watched the video and MAC Attack does look like a sensible level of complexity.
Delete"Paragraphs are for people who are too cowardly for bullet points"
^ I also approve of this. My criteria is "Could I explain this to a kid without massive paraphrasing"
As someone who routinely deals with 10 year old and younger students, any concept can be unpacked for anyone, provided it is done in the right way: I.e. any 9 year old can easily understand math concepts traditionally taught to older teens.
-eM
Battletech was the first tabletop wargame I played back in the beginning of the nineties. Therefore, it already holds a special place in my heart. I also think that the rules are fine for what they want to emulate. Giant robots shooting and beating the crap out of each other. My only issue with the rules is the bad scalability. The granularity of the rules is only suitable for a few mechs per side, maybe a lance each.
ReplyDeleteI never had any issues with the rules themselves. All relevant information was on the mech record sheets and the double-sided game reference sheet. After a few games, you should be able to remember most modifiers and tables as they are not that difficult. I also never had any issues with checking hit boxes, but I also have been playing a lot of RPGs.
The game itself feels like a fight between heavyweight boxers (with guns), where a fight could potentially be over with each hit, but it could also last the full number of rounds. Not to mention crazy stuff like the death from above attack or beating mechs with their own blown-off limbs. It doesn´t get more awesome than that. Thinking about it, maybe I should get back into the game…
I'm a fan of Star Fleet Battles for similar reasons, and both understand and disagree with the complaints against the game. The original scale of fleets and ships that SFB was designed to play works really well, but as time went on people made bigger ships, bigger fleets, and the whole things devolved into the unweld mess deserving of the stigma it has today. Having played Battletech in the early 90's I've seen it go down the same route, too.
DeleteI think it's a fairly universal problem with successful games. A good concept becomes a successful game and repeat visits from the good idea fairy adds rule bloat. Players decide that pushing more units would make for a grander game and suddenly a game designed for 3-5 units a side is being played with 20+ units boasting more special rules that were in the entire game initially - and that's what the gatekeepers of the game now consider an "acceptable" size. Warhammer fantasy went this way, SFB, Battletech, squad leader (advanced squad leader!), and so many more.
I agree, rules bloat is also a big issue. For example, 40k had already multiple rules bIoat "resets". I would say that Battletech offers at least an opportunity to counter that. You can always decide that you just use 3025 tech, which limits the available equipment drastically. You can also exclude at lot of unit types (e.g. everything except mechs) and still have an awesome game.
DeleteThe push for more units unfortunately seems to be a logical conclusion of collecting miniatures. Taking Battletech as an example, at some point I had more than 100 mechs plus vehicles, infantry, battle armor and protomechs. If we only played each game with around 4 mechs, I would have to play A LOT to get the opportunity to field them all...or I could expand the number of units until the game breaks.
I think this is a very good point:
Delete".........A good concept becomes a successful game and repeat visits from the good idea fairy adds rule bloat. Players decide that pushing more units would make for a grander game and suddenly a game designed for 3-5 units a side is being played with 20+ units boasting more special rules that were in the entire game initially..."
--This is absolutely true.
I also think there needs to be a point where the rules need to be ripped up and started completely afresh as they are now completely unaligned with their design goal; however this is probably NOT a popular opinion.
Rules writers seem to be more concerned with copying mechanics from similar rules/old editions "tradition" than focussing on what the rules are trying to replicate.
The question should be "what is the quickest, easiest way to replicate X while keeping the rules mechanics consistent" not "how can I adapt Y older game/mechanic to show X."
A 40K space marine (aka +1 guardsman) bears no resemblance to the SMs in their own literature.
In my rules cupboard digging, recently I came across an early edition of 40K (1st, 2nd? cover is ripped) and it is fine. A quasi RPG for as handful of minis and the odd vehicle with build-your-own advice and random kit. Sounds like a indie kickstarter actually. It's not designed for dozens of vehicles and squads and a table-size spectacle. There were specific rules for that, too (Epic). But the 40K skirmish rules got slowly moved into the Epic mass battle space...
-eM
"Battletech was the first tabletop wargame I played back in the beginning of the nineties. Therefore, it already holds a special place in my heart."
DeleteBT has a LOT of positive nostalgia. Probably also the most supporting books/games/fluff for any miniatures game aside for 40K, as well. As I said - it "delivers" - albeit as a 1980s semi-RPG for 4v4 action.
I do think the rules could be revamped a lot, focussing on the simplest way of doing the cool "BT stuff" while streamlining to improve scalability etc.
*Giant robots shooting and beating the crap out of each other
*A fight could potentially be over with each hit, but it could also last the full number of rounds
*Crazy stuff like the death from above attack
*Beating mechs with their own blown-off limbs
Changing modernizing and streamlining mechanics does NOT mean removing cool stuff, but rather asking "what is the most fast, efficient way to do all this?"
Alpha Strike - 178 page =/= fast play? - asks "how can we reduce hit allocation and recording while retaining 95% of the same mechanics, rules and modifiers?" Not exactly the same thing...
-eM