Something very different

[chgowiz]

While not OD&D or D&D at all, but very much in the spirit of "less rules, more fun..."

I released an 8 page digest booklet sized microMechwarrior ruleset today. In the spirit of the microlite20/microlite74 games, I distilled Mechwarrior 1st Ed down to it's essentials. Chargen, task resolution, skills, combat, advancement, equipment, even conversion to the Battletech boardgame Piloting/Gunnery stats.

I don't know if we have any 30-100ton stompy machine lovers here, but I thought I would toss it out. I'm going to be playtesting these soon and getting them ready for a Battletech/Mechwarrior game at Winterwar in 2010.

[billhooks]

Looks pretty solid. The one thing that throws me is the seemingly redundant attributes and skills -- i.e., why DEX and Coordination rather than just DEX? If the skills were a bit more obviously orthogonal to the attributes (like say Scientific, Military, Diplomatic, Mechanical), that would be more typical of Stat+Skill design. As it is, I'm wondering "what's the rationale?".

[chgowiz]

Oct 8, 2009 15:45:29 GMT -6 billhooks said:

Looks pretty solid. The one thing that throws me is the seemingly redundant attributes and skills -- i.e., why DEX and Coordination rather than just DEX? If the skills were a bit more obviously orthogonal to the attributes (like say Scientific, Military, Diplomatic, Mechanical), that would be more typical of Stat+Skill design. As it is, I'm wondering "what's the rationale?".

The stats are raw materials, the skills are using those raw materials in trained ways. I may be dexterous, but unless I train in coordinating my eyes/hands/feet, I can't drive so well. If I'm particular dexterous, then my raw materials gives me an edge. (i.e., driving situation may require a skill check of Coor + DEX, which fits what I just wrote).

Going orthogonal limits the rules to a list, whereas with the 4 skills and 4 stats, I have near limitless ability to adjudicate any particular situation that might require some sort of skill check. The Stat Bonus is the icing on the cake.

[coffee]

And the stat bonus sounds to me like the thing that'll push the numbers over the top.

I see that you're using 2d6. And that the "near impossible/it'd take a miracle" target number is 12.

Which comes up one time in 36. And that's without any bonuses.

If I had any complaint about this ruleset of yours (and I really don't; this is merely a suggestion) it would be that you've set your target numbers too low. Anybody with a skill and a stat bonus will laugh at them, and I think justifiably. (I've only ever played the Battletech board game, not the rpg, so I don't know if over-the-top is what you're going for here.)

Other than that, it looks very nice.

[chgowiz]

Oct 9, 2009 13:06:07 GMT -6 coffee said:

And the stat bonus sounds to me like the thing that'll push the numbers over the top.

I see that you're using 2d6. And that the "near impossible/it'd take a miracle" target number is 12.

Which comes up one time in 36. And that's without any bonuses.

If I had any complaint about this ruleset of yours (and I really don't; this is merely a suggestion) it would be that you've set your target numbers too low. Anybody with a skill and a stat bonus will laugh at them, and I think justifiably. (I've only ever played the Battletech board game, not the rpg, so I don't know if over-the-top is what you're going for here.)

Other than that, it looks very nice.

This is the feedback I need because I am not good with the statistics and numbers. This is where my game designer skill rolls fail

The thing I was hoping to avoid was having TNs that can't be rolled on the dice naturally. It's like the D20 DCs of 30 and 40... you know you can't roll that. On OD&D, I don't recall numbers that you couldn't roll on the d20. So I was hoping that setting it at 12 would cause it to fail. and the only time you're going to have serious STAT bonuses is if you get 9 or better on your initial stats.

What would you suggest?

[chgowiz]

I went back to MW1 and MW2 and took a scan again. Maybe I use the corresponding STAT associated with the particular skill check as the TN, and skill levels are added to the roll. Get rid of STAT bonuses. Modifers are assigned by GM to the roll. So yea, you could have a final number that is higher than what you could possibly roll.

Example:

I want to modify the Initiative for my unit in a firefight, so we get my Initiative bonus. That requires tactics, which is a Know skill. My MIND stat is an 8. My CHA stat is a 7. So I'll use the MIND as my Target Number. I have 2 levels in Know, so I can add +2 to my roll. Because it's dark and we're facing an elite team of assassins, the GM rules it's very difficult, but not impossible to outwit these guys. So let's say that's a -3 to my roll. (scale of 1 to 5 penalties, 5 being most difficult.)

I would need to roll under or equal to a 7 to be able to use tactics to allow my team to add an initiative bonus.

Does that seem better or worse?

EDITED LATER TO ADD - it's worse. BT basic mechanic is to roll equal/above the TN, not below. Have to think about this.

[coffee]

Oct 9, 2009 14:33:48 GMT -6 @chgowiz said:

The thing I was hoping to avoid was having TNs that can't be rolled on the dice naturally. It's like the D20 DCs of 30 and 40... you know you can't roll that. On OD&D, I don't recall numbers that you couldn't roll on the d20. So I was hoping that setting it at 12 would cause it to fail. and the only time you're going to have serious STAT bonuses is if you get 9 or better on your initial stats.

What would you suggest?

I wouldn't worry too much about TNs going off the dice. 13 just lets people know that they need a bonus, that it's really something to hit that target.

Now, according to the formula you gave, you get a +1 at 8, +2 at 10, and +3 at 12. And that's exclusive of skill bonuses. So it should be pretty rare that someone doesn't have at least a +1 -- and there are always situational bonuses, too.

So you could go ahead and put "miraculous" at 13 without causing a real problem. Actually, you could probably just bump each number up by one and it'd be ready to playtest (which may again point out something else that's off, but that'll come up when it comes up.)

Anyway, this should be enough to be getting on with.

[coffee]

Oct 9, 2009 14:50:06 GMT -6 @chgowiz said:

> snipperoonie<

Does that seem better or worse?

I don't know; I didn't understand a word of it. But it's late in the day and I'm about to get off of work, so maybe later tonight it'll make more sense.

I only ever played Battletech a bit back in the 80's and never really read the rules thoroughly (as if I was playing it regularly). I have a copy of "Classic Battletech", but haven't looked at it in years (I'll have to pull that one out one of these days...) So I don't really know Battletech, or its rpg.

But I do know 2d6. So probabilities on that, I can help you with.

[chgowiz]

Ah, gotcha.

The way I understand it, the basic Battletech boardgame mechanic is to have a Target Number. You add and subtract modifiers, then you need to roll either over or under that number, depending on the task resolution. For combat "to hit" you have to roll equal or greater.

So I guess for more skilled and more able persons, you would want the STAT and skill to make the roll more likely to succeed. The issue is coming up with the initial Target Number that makes sense. Back to the drawing board.

[chgowiz]

coffee - you've got mail! If you don't mind looking something over?

[chgowiz]

Updated PDF and link.

[chgowiz]

After testing and feedback, I've created a new version and given them a "permanent home" on my blog - oldguyrpg.blogspot.com/2009/10/micromechwarrior.html.

I'm pretty confident that these rules can handle about 90% of typical Mechwarrior RPG needs.