Members | Sign In
Modiphius > Mutant Chronicles Playtest Discussion (CLOSED)
avatar

Beta 9.5 Discussion

posted Jul 11, 2014 18:04:35 by ChrisBirch
Please post your views and queries of the final Beta test document here.
[Last edited Feb 10, 2016 00:04:54]
Founder & Publisher
page   first prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next last
656 replies
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 18, 2014 21:05:55
-Page 3 Under starting wounds table: the increases in this table go up in a 3/3/2 pattern (+1 to three locations, +1 to three locations, +1 to two locations). This makes increasing your wounds go up unevenly. Also, gaining wounds on certain hit locations is more valuable than others, due to them being hit more frequently. The body, arms, and legs each have a 30% chance of being hit, while the head has a 10% chance. Serious and critical wounds apply evenly to any hit location, and are thus the most valuable. I'd argue that serious wounds are more valuable than critical wounds, as each critical wound you receive causes some kind of horrible status effect, while serious wounds are a buffer before you start suffering those.

Thus, the rankings for wounds from best to worst are 1st serious wounds, 2nd critical wounds, 3rd arm leg torso wounds, 4th head wounds. I can see that the current chart has a fixed progression for each wound of one increase every third or second rank. The problem with having that fixed progression is that some of the wounds are less valuable than others. That and certain locations realistically shouldn't have more wounds than others.

So we have 11 ranks/levels for wounds, and a total of 29 advances to give out. I haven't been able to look into how this could be balanced out, but I think it's doable, possibly with slightly different numbers of advances.

-Page 3-4 under Assets and Earnings: this section mentions possible ways to gain assets but there are no specifics. These specifics will be important due to the necessity of assets for purchasing a lot of equipment. It also mentions drawing income or a salary affecting someone's earnings, but this is not mentioned anywhere else.

-page 5 under life path character creation: this says that the first time a skill is awarded it goes into expertise. Does this mean later increases from char. creation can be used for expertise or focus? Also, does this rule apply for buying a skill with experience? Also, the line "...after which additional training can be assigned to Expertise or Focus up to a maximum of three unless the player..." should read "...after which additional training can be assigned to Expertise or Focus up to a maximum of three EACH unless the player..." Just for clarification. Finally, does this mean if you are selecting skills and select the same skill twice it counts as getting it twice? What happens if you get the same talent twice, if possible?

-Page 5 under Decision One, Attributes: I'd recommend simplifying the part about raising and lowering attributes to just say: "you may change any attribute from a 5 to a 4 in order to change another attribute from a 5 to a 6. This can be done up to 4 times." This takes care of having to mention maximums or minimums or other edge case rules.

-page 5 under Decision Two, Birth Faction: I got really confused reading this due to how the chart is set up. I think It may be simpler to have column two be Faction/Heritage and results 1-3 on column 1 say "roll on column two for HERITAGE" and 4-6 to say "roll on column two for FACTION" I dunno, I'd like to see what other people think on this. Also, does paying a life point let you only pick one result, or can you pay a life point to, for example, choose criminal faction AND Mishima heritage? If not, can you pay two life points to choose both? Given how much less relative impact this has on skills, I'd be tempted to allow one life point to allow choosing from both charts, if applicable.

-Page 6 under the language skills talent table: the freelancer and criminal shouldn't have the same skill. Also, it would be better to have the skills for the non-corp characters all be different from the corps. I'd recommend command for the microcorp to represent ordering around underlings and education for the freelancer to represent why he might be valuable enough to hire on.

-page 6 under the equipment table: This table feels a little uneven. so Mishima, Capitol, and Imperial all essentially have an owed favor or 1 asset. Mishima and Capitol seem identical, other than the fluff mention of having a business card. Imperial mentions Clans, which I can't find anywhere else in the rules. Bauhaus's doesn't mention what kind of shoulder pad it is. The toolset for Cybertronic isn't a listed item unless you mean the portable one, and neither is the Geiger counter for whitestar. I'd recommend evening these out. Make EVERY one have the option of an item, OR a favor, OR an asset. I don't know the fluff much at all, so I can't really recommend what to give each thing, but each favor should probably evoke the fluff of the corp, and each item should have equal value (the shoulder pad is worth 6-10, depending on what kind it is, while the night vision goggles are only worth 5, and the portable toolset is only worth 2).

-page 7 under decision three, status: I've already mentioned the issue of elite status not being worth two life points. I also think employed under class and working lower should not have identical attribute bonuses. Maybe give one of them physique and strength? For that matter, why not have each of the attributes included? This is missing coordination, intelligence and awareness. Those could be slotted in fairly easily. It would mean you'd have 4 of the attributes seen twice, which could be physique, mental strength, personality, and strength. For the apparel and lodgings, it would be best to list what items they are akin to from page 121 of the main beta. I assume the first two statuses gain Clothes and Room with no View. The second two gain clothing, corp quality clothing, and a small apartment. The next one gains corp quality and fashionable clothing, and a large apartment. The last gains high society clothing, fashionable clothing, and a lavish apartment?

-page 8 under decision four, environment: I'm not sure what makes sequestered or orbital environments better than the others. Why not just make it cost one LP to choose any? Also, I again think that all 8 attributes should be included for environment, this time having awareness, intelligence, coordination, and agility as the ones that are used twice. On the table for the Cybertronic entries for footholds and hotspots, I'm a little confused. So you roll another faction and environment and say you were recruited from there? But given that these say "recruited from other corp hotspot/foothold" wouldn't you just roll for faction and say you're from that factions foothold/hotspot? Also, some of the Bauhaus entries need to be clarified/edited "As much about which family you belong to as where you are." means it doesn't matter what part you're from? Why the ? after "research outpost"?

-page 9 under equipment table: this table is again balanced weirdly. Every entry should have a choice of gear OR an asset OR a favor. The gear should all be roughly the same cost.

-page 10 under decision five, education: you should be able to pay a life point to choose from table A as well.
avatar
rickardwaern said Jul 18, 2014 23:00:57
Preemptive warning, lots of text incoming.

TL;DR: Character creation creates balanced characters, and gives players a good mix of random elements and control but, in my admittedly biased opinion, fails to reach the narrative power of the old edition.

Having played lots of MC in my misspent youth, I have some points I would like to adress concerning character creation. I should of course be open with that I am wearing some serious nostalgia glasses concerning the old process. Anyway, without further ado...

- Characters generated with the new rules generally appear to have a similar and consistent level of competence and power. This is good.

- The life path system gives a measure of control while still leaving some things to fate. So far, it seems I can come up with a concept and come out with a character mostly like I imagined, but with some quirks and random elements. This is also good.

- The system in the older editions gave you a lot of information about your character. This was, of course, in large part because characters tended to do many repetitions. The backside of the old system was that players were heavily incentivized to do this as they were rewarded with stronger characters. This was bad - but the narrative effects and information the system provided is something I sorely miss from the new rules. I will illuminate my point with an example of a friends character during a campaign I ran a few years ago:

"Stig Steinbrunner was born to a lower middle class Bauhaus family. After completing the mandatory military service, he left for Luna, intent on becoming a journalist. After graduating from school, Stig failed to convince the Luna Herald that he was journalist material. In fact, he actually managed to make himself a powerful enemy at the prestigious paper, making it hard for him to pursue his dream. After considering his options, Stig studied law and managed to land a cushy job at a prestigious firm, and there raised far above his birth prospects. However, the good life was not to last - Stig apparently took on some very questionable clients and ended up being convicted for a serious crime, spending several years in jail.

His legal career over, Stig used the contacts he made in jail to find work on the wrong side of the law, using his skills as a lawyer to aid various syndicates in their shady endeavours. This worked for a few years, but the Luna Police proved uncharacteristically effective when it came to Stig, and this time it was off to labour camp.

Emerging a broken man, Stig made a last attempt at becoming a journalist, but failed (without a doubt foiled by those pesky Luna Herald snobs) and was forced to use the skills aquired during his life as the lowliest of the low, a private investigator. It is a somewhat bitter, cynical middle-aged man who braces himself to face whatever life has left to throw at him."

All this came from the ruleset and the often capricious nature of the old event tables. This sort of story, however, is not possible in the new system, which I think is a great pity. Another thing I liked about the old rules was the way a characters prosperity would fluctuate. It had the problem that finished characters tended to gravitate toward being very rich, though. The ignoble Stig in the example above actually had a wealth level of 8/10, which was not very fitting considering the circumstances at the end of his career.

I would love to see some way to expand on character creation without awarding players too much powerwise. Perhaps through diminishing returns on repetitions, or giving some type of bonus to characters that choose to start out younger, or a combination.

My gripes with character creation aside, however, I really think you did a great job on the system. Especially love how you handle the art, and the aquisition system also seems promising!
[Last edited Jul 18, 2014 23:06:50]
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 19, 2014 01:22:03
Character Creation Doc

-Page 10-11 under Decision 5, Education
All of the A-Level Educations(Technical, Rural, Clerical, Draft) only provide 8 attribute points. I know you want to differentiate them from the B and C Educations, but given that the system allows randomly rolling and that you could spend no life points and get a swanky education, this seems a bit unfair. I think there are two solutions: (1) you make them give the standard 10 attributes of the other Educations or (B) you change the table so that rolling on table A cannot hit a result that allows to roll on table B or C and instead is limited to the 4 A-Level educations (you could in turn spend one life point to choose an education on table A, OR choose to roll on table B or C, and two life points to choose from table B or C)

-Decision 5, Education
Some of these provide equipment/items that are already listed in the book, and others provide equipment not listed. I would recommend NOT providing any equipment listed in the book and instead only provide equipment with that adds flavor/theme to the character (e.g. instead of a survival kit, the rural/colonial can choose between a guidebook on poisonous plants OR a very small pet). Include a note at the start of the section stating "Any equipment provided by an education is has a cost of 2, reliability of 2 and encumbrance of 1. Whenever a player and GM agree on a skill roll in which the equipment would come in handy, it allows him to add 1d20 to a roll without paying a DSP (this still counts toward the max number of purchasable DSPs)" Basically, make all of the equipment provide interesting story hooks.

-page 11 under B4 Military Academy: This education provides 11 points of attributes rather than the standard 10 for B and C-level educations.

-Page 13 under Adolescent Events: This table should not have some entries with weaknesses and other with advantages. Either every entry should have a weakness, every entry an advantage, or both. I'd recommend either both, or just weaknesses. Also, given how cool the strange events table is, it should probably be mandatory to roll on. Omit strange events entries from this table.

-Page 14 under Decision Six, Primary Career: Allowing players to just choose freely from tables A and B invalidates those educations that gave players a choice of those careers in the first place. I recommend 1 lifepoint to choose from A or B, 1 lifepoint to roll on C or D, and two lifepoints to choose from C or D, as well as removing the random chance of rolling C or D from table A.

-Decision Six, Primary Career: It should be noted that because many of these careers offer vehicles, I'm unable to figure out the total value of their equipment. However, several careers list equipment that is not listed in the book. Unlike with educations, I think that it's fine to have these items be listed ones from the book, but their value should balance out, with C and D careers having more valuable items.

-Page 15 under the example for Mick: This mentions that Mick has to buy Hardy again to add further talents to resilience. This isn't mentioned in the entry for Experimental Subject that the talent needs to be paid for before other talents can be bought, nor does it mention benefiting from twice the effects.

-Page 15-16 under Unemployed: I'm not sure how you get this career. Also, it balances a little weirdly, with only two mandatory skills, and no effective skills. I'd recommend adding 1 of player's choice to effective skills. Also an explanation for this career is entered.

-Page 16 under Unemployed, Corporate Worker, Technical, Military (Basic), Police (Beat Cop), Criminal: These careers provide 11 attribute points rather than 10 and should be lowered to 10 or have all other careers raised to 11.

-General: For events that add to Earnings, can that end up exceeding 5? What about for status?

-Page 19 under Career Events: Again, some of these provide weaknesses and some don't. There are also a few career events that provide conflicts. I think this table should be changed such that every event gives an advantage AND a conflict. Also omit the Strange Events entries.

-Page 20 under Strange Events: These events are primarily based in childhood and make little sense for career events. This should just be a mandatory table to roll on before education.

-Page 21 under Example, Elective Skills: This says to choose one from the elective skills and gain a rank in each of them. It should say to choose TWO from elective skills.

-Decision Seven, Iconic Careers: Most of these careers careers has 2 talents rather than the one of the primary careers as well as cool items. I can't look at the item balance due to many of them not being in the book, but the cost value of them should scale with the roll difficulty. The Corporate Samurai (Diff 2), Triad Enforcer(Diff 1), Shadow Walker (Diff 2), and Celebrity (Diff 1) all only have 1 talent. Either number of talents should scale with difficult on a 1:1 basis or each career should get 1 talent. The doom trooper getting three is fine due to its high difficulty.

-Page 28 under Freedom Brigade: What constitutes a criminal record? The career event that specifically mentions it, having a criminal career, other events that mention being convicted?

-Decision 8, Final Customization: It is mentioned that if you have not gotten a weakness, favour, or conflict that one should be recorded. No guidance is given on how to choose these. My previous suggesting fix this by making each of them occur in mandatory rolls.




avatar
rickardwaern said Jul 19, 2014 10:48:29
Page 15-16 under Unemployed: I'm not sure how you get this career. Also, it balances a little weirdly, with only two mandatory skills, and no effective skills. I'd recommend adding 1 of player's choice to effective skills. Also an explanation for this career is entered


Page 14: "You can choose to be unemployed for one of your two Primary Careers and regain 1 Life Point." As far as I can tell, that is the only way to become unemployed.

General: For events that add to Earnings, can that end up exceeding 5? What about for status?


I also wondered about that, seeing that it is possible to get over 5 during character creation. Personally I am not averse to there being higher levels. Gives players something to strive towards if they are materialistic or status driven... but if there are more levels, there need to be definitions.

Page 19 under Career Events: Again, some of these provide weaknesses and some don't. There are also a few career events that provide conflicts. I think this table should be changed such that every event gives an advantage AND a conflict. Also omit the Strange Events entries.


This makes sense to me... as long as you can't get extra repetitions, which I am as I stated in my previous post hoping for.

Also related:

-Page 14 under Strange Events: "This table is to provide inspiration, not necessarily rules for the results of these events. You may use a Life Point to re-roll if you do not like the result." Does this mean that there will be rules for the results, or that GMs and players are encouraged to make up their own mechanic effects, or that there are no mechanic effects of the events? I think all the event tables are generally in need of a bit of work.

Page 20 under Strange Events: These events are primarily based in childhood and make little sense for career events. This should just be a mandatory table to roll on before education.


I concur - I would like to see a strange events table for childhood that contains effects, both good and bad in the same result. Perhaps it should cost a life point to roll on it. Ideally, there would also be a strange events table for use during career rolls as well, but I would be fine with just expanding the career event list with more events instead.
[Last edited Jul 19, 2014 11:17:06]
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 21, 2014 17:33:31
Nicholas is providing a lot of feedback--is there anyone from Modiphius still on these forums? It's been pretty quiet in here, and I'd have expected a lot more discussion. Maybe this isn't the most active MC3 forum?

So far, we've only made one PC and noticed a few things about chargen that broadly echo what someone else said here: the characters are all the same "experience" level, which is too bad, it was cool to be able to choose how many background repetitions you wanted to do, though I admit that "32" was the magic age and most PCs ended up at 32 years old. Is the playtest packet representative of the final rules or will additional careers be allowed? Are there any aging rules?

I'm also concerned, very broadly, about the overall design of the game, but it's obviously FAR too late to really worry about it. I don't know how the MC community shakes out, but the original game was, despite some oddities, fairly simulationist, and this game has been deliberately designed away from simulationism--this might be a mistake given the audience, or perhaps it will bring many new players to the game! Obviously, that ship has sailed, so I hope it's the latter, but I'm wondering if there will be any supplements put out to allow people to use squares and minis like we always used to back in the day (all the various boardgame minis made GREAT RPG minis!).

That said, I'm very curious to really play the new game and see how my group likes it. We have been on a GURPS 4th Edition kick, and have never once tried any of the new age-y indie RPGs like Dogs in the Vineyard and we've even stayed away from FATE and slightly crunchier but still new agey games similar to it. Fortunately, MC3 maintains a very clear task resolution core, so I don't think it will be an oil & water experience when we sit down to play finally.

The one thing that really confuses me is how combat is supposed to work so abstractly--it just seems to me that the zones make things way more complicated than the old standby of drawing a map on a whiteboard or piece of paper. And obviously, many MC players used minis and square grids. Has anyone had good success with the new "zone" system?
-Apoc527
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 21, 2014 20:33:24
@JakeBernstein

I've been contacted via email by Modiphius about the feedback I've been giving, so people are listening. I think with a lot of rpgs like this that people are frankly more interested in the fluff/story side of things than the rules. Add to that how niche this product is (niche hobby, niche setting, unreleased, etc.) and it makes sense why the forums have been pretty quiet. I imagine things will pick up steam upon release and as people start deciding whether they like the rules. I know that this isn't the best way to market the product (nor is it probably legal), but I see this game as being what Dark Heresy second edition would have been like if Jay Little (the guy who did warhammer fantasy roleplay third edition) had designed it. I personally love Jay's design style of being very interested in the "game" part of rpgs, so that sold me on it.

So, as far as simulationism/versus abstraction, I'd like to say that I appreciate that you seem to have a fairly open mind about not criticizing more abstract systems. It sounds like your preference is for simulationism, which is perfectly fine. I would definitely say that you're correct about the current rules moving away from simulationism. I personally think this is a good thing.

One of the main goals of simulationism is to simulate a living world with the idea that it becomes more immersive for players. The main flaw with this approach is that codifying this into rules means either adding a LOT of complexity or creating rules that don't accurately simulate things. Think of it in terms of video games. The more powerful a console/PC is, the more accurately that games made for it can simulate a world. The human brain acts as its own ultra powerful computer, the most powerful in the world, and RPGs are essentially the games made for the console of the mind (my apologies if this sounds ridiculously pretentious!). Even though the mind and imagination are powerful, they, too, have limitations. The brain can't do all of the math behind calculating every individual piece of body movement in an RPG, and thus it gets abstracted to movement numbers or what have you. Basically, in order to simulate an immersive world, an RPG has to simplify some things in order for the game to run smoothly. Think of the time spent calculating numbers, remembering rules, adding bonuses, and adding penalties as being the things that "slow down the framerate" of a tabletop RPG. The more that these can be simplified, while also providing an engrossing game, the more immersive the game can be. So, in other words, all RPGs need to look at where things can be abstracted or simplified in order to make the game run more smoothly, because nothing is less immersive than a bad frame rate.

So in terms of combat, you're worried about the Zone system. This system actually gets used in FATE as well. The most basic way to do this is to draw yourself a simple map, noting the key features. Go ahead and say that each key feature is its own zone and draw borders such that each zone has one feature in it. While players are in that zone, they can use its features, such as cover, darkness, height, or what have you. For particularly large areas, you may consider breaking it into two or more zones with the same feature. Think of it as simplifying movement in such a way that no matter where you move to, there is something interesting in the environment. In fact, it can be fun to just draw a map and have players suggest what features to put in different zones. Using zones like this can also allow you to enact battles over much larger distances without needing to worry about table space or upscaling square sizes on a grid. You can still draw maps on a whiteboard or piece of paper if you want. That's how I've done zones in fate.

Does some of that make sense?
avatar
rickardwaern said Jul 21, 2014 20:52:48
Well, I assume the guys from Modiphius don't fancy working on weekends anymore than I do, but now it would be nice to hear from them... especially concerning the matter of character creation and repetitions, where we seem to share an interest.

I'm also concerned, very broadly, about the overall design of the game, but it's obviously FAR too late to really worry about it. I don't know how the MC community shakes out, but the original game was, despite some oddities, fairly simulationist, and this game has been deliberately designed away from simulationism [...] The one thing that really confuses me is how combat is supposed to work so abstractly--it just seems to me that the zones make things way more complicated than the old standby of drawing a map on a whiteboard or piece of paper. And obviously, many MC players used minis and square grids. Has anyone had good success with the new "zone" system?).


Regarding this, my groups have always played without either minis or grids. I have no experience with the new system they are using, but in my experience abstract combat works fine and the zone system may actually bring a layer of useful details for groups such as mine.

Regardless, it seems to me like they are not at all discouraging using grids and miniatures, consider the following text, found under "Characters & Zones" on p. 34:

"Large fights may become tricky to track in this way, however – lots of characters and creatures to
think about – so you may wish to use something more to remind you of who is where. If you’re
already using a sketched map, then marking character places on in pencil (so they can be easily
erased and redrawn when they move) is a simple approach. Alternatively, you may use tokens to
represent each character, and move them around as required. Many players enjoy having a painted
and converted miniature of their character, and such models are perfect for use as tokens to track
positioning in combat."

It seems to me like a similation is actually aided by the system. You could, for example, if you enjoy using grids, prepare multiple "zones" in the form of, for example, cut out drawings of cars, bushes, structures or whatever. These could make up a tool-box that could be used and expanded as necessary.

In short, I think this system will facilitate both types of play, and a hybrid as well.
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 21, 2014 20:58:22
@Nicholas

Thanks for your post, that's very very helpful (the last part on zones, I mean). I'm still not convinced that's a "better" way of doing it than simply drawing the map and using a real-world measurement system, but I can see more clearly HOW you would play a game using zones. It just seems like if I'm going to go through the trouble of map-drawing in the first place, I might as well use the map I've drawn to estimate some kind of objective distance. But that gets into the next part of your post, about simulationism.

I absolutely agree with what you said, in principle: we play GURPS now (about as simulationist as you can get), but we've also enjoyed D&D Next's playtest (much much more gamist), and other less "complex" systems. This is not the place for a discussion of simulationism vs. gamism, but with respect to the discussion we are trying to have, I think where I stand is that I need perhaps more objectivity than this zones system is willing to give me. Moreover, I don't know if the zone system requires more or less "processor time" compared to a more objective mapping system. And for the record, your analogy isn't pretentious at all, it makes perfect sense. Indeed, I have started calling all RPG game systems the "physics engine" for that game and setting. The GM "runs" the physics engine on his brain and the players connect to the "server" in order to play the game. Bizarre, yes, but it works out nicely.

For example, let's say there's a simple fight in a small section of Luna City--maybe some alleys, some streets, and a building. Keep it small scale, kind of like the example battle in the old first edition MC core book (with McBride and his buddies). I describe several zones: the front of the alley, the back of the alley (where the PCs are), and the windows in the buildings. I am just having a really hard time comprehending how a GM should adjudicate this battle without distances measured in feet/meters/yards/etc, especially when it comes to movement. With a gunfight, sure, a vague "range band" is serviceable, but not knowing how far or fast my PC can move is quite annoying. And I think it will lead to immense player frustration as they try to puzzle out the scenario and what's going on. The problem is that people DO think in terms of objective distances, and even if most people can't tell the difference between 20 and 30 feet, everyone DOES have a sense for how far 10 yards is (well, at least us American football fans do), or how long it takes to run a kilometer.

Honestly, the rest of the system doesn't really create much heartburn, but the zone thing is just really throwing me for a loop. Do you know of any written examples of play that use zones online for any system?
-Apoc527
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 21, 2014 21:01:03
@rickardwaern

Good point, I missed that--if they offer that up, why not offer some stats with real numbers? My understanding is that the previous playtest version DID have real measurements, but now they are removed. I would prefer the option of using either, so maybe they will add that back in.
-Apoc527
avatar
rickardwaern said Jul 21, 2014 21:07:57
With a gunfight, sure, a vague "range band" is serviceable, but not knowing how far or fast my PC can move is quite annoying. And I think it will lead to immense player frustration as they try to puzzle out the scenario and what's going on. The problem is that people DO think in terms of objective distances, and even if most people can't tell the difference between 20 and 30 feet, everyone DOES have a sense for how far 10 yards is (well, at least us American football fans do), or how long it takes to run a kilometer.


Concerning this, I have recently been playing Edge of the Empire, which I believe is designed in part by the same guy that has worked with MC 3rd. It uses the same range bands, and similar movement rules, at any rate. My experience is that it is fairly fluid after the first few sessions, and that when you are used to it makes movement pretty intuitive. Simply put, you start to think in range bands instead of meters or feet in combat situations.
avatar
Benn said Jul 21, 2014 21:21:02
Hi all, One of the problems with responding to a Forum is that by the time you type a response the forum's moved on. Nicholas is doing a very good job of keeping us working weekends and nights. At present I'm 4 days behind him in integrating his queries into the Beta, investigating his issues and of course answering them.

Sorry if you think we're ignoring the board but when I offered Nicholas a formal answer he was fine with waiting.

For character generation, before multiple iterations and variable cycles of activity are incorporated into the structure the base structure has to work. If character gen doesn't work with limited iterations of career then it wont with supplemental career cycles. Then there's the math of keeping cycles in check with each other.

Once serious issue with static distance is that of time. See if you have a flexible combat round and static distance the actual distance you can affect with things like running/ piloting a vehicle in a chase etc varies depending on that round. by viewing distance as the radius of effect for each character you avoid this as the distance molds itself to the expectation of time passing.

As a freebie we started by speccing combat to general measurements that were approx 2m (reach) 30m (close) 100m (long). If you feel that the game suffers by not providing the option of using either a flexible simple range system or a crunchier set distance system then this is certainly the time to shout. We're always after feedback and we take action on feedback when we get it.

Who know's if a more detailed guide to combat is what people want I might be able to twist Chris's Arm.

Benn
_______________________________

Everyone's welcome in the pit!

Benn
avatar
rickardwaern said Jul 21, 2014 22:09:42
Hello Ben,

Thanks for keeping us updated - as a project manager, I certainly appreciate the challenge of both working to adress issues, discussing them with your team and communicating results and decisions. I don't necessarily expect any in-depth answers, but it is always nice to see that your concerns are noticed.

For character generation, before multiple iterations and variable cycles of activity are incorporated into the structure the base structure has to work. If character gen doesn't work with limited iterations of career then it wont with supplemental career cycles. Then there's the math of keeping cycles in check with each other.


I certainly understand this. Like I previously noted, characters who did many iterations tended to become very powerful, which I thought unfortunate. But I truly hope you can overcome these challenges and create a system which keeps the narrative powers of the old system, wheter now or down the road. However, I am wondering if "before multiple iterations [...] are incorporated..." means that you are aiming to do this, or is my reading comprehension poor?
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 21, 2014 22:15:46
If you feel that the game suffers by not providing the option of using either a flexible simple range system or a crunchier set distance system then this is certainly the time to shout. We're always after feedback and we take action on feedback when we get it.


SHOUT! SHOUT! I'm shouting! I am not saying that it should be required, but the option should exist for crunchier combat. MC is heavily influenced by wargaming (Warzone, anyone) and I think it would be a shame to ignore that past, particularly given the 1st and 2nd edition level of crunch. The variable round is, of course, an impediment to clear movement rules, but I don't see why you can't have a set combat round for those who like the crunch of an objectively measured system. The combat system as currently written is far too abstract generally for my tastes, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Having support for "advanced combat" rules would be great though.

For character generation, before multiple iterations and variable cycles of activity are incorporated into the structure the base structure has to work. If character gen doesn't work with limited iterations of career then it wont with supplemental career cycles. Then there's the math of keeping cycles in check with each other.


Agreed, and I'm glad to hear that chargen isn't "finished" by any stretch. I do think it WORKS right now, I just want the option of MORE. I also think that there should be MORE events and that MORE should be rolled each career cycle. Honestly, copying the tables from 1st/2nd Edition would be fine.

Who know's if a more detailed guide to combat is what people want I might be able to twist Chris's Arm.


Twist away! Twist away!! As a general rule, I do not like games that assume I can't do math. People think GURPS is one of the most complex games ever made...that simply isn't true, it plays smoothly, it just has a lot of front-loaded math. In game, it doesn't ask you to do anything more complicated than some single digit division or multiplication--there's nothing wrong with some mental math in an RPG!

[Last edited Jul 21, 2014 22:22:23]
-Apoc527
avatar
Benn said Jul 21, 2014 22:44:20
Hi Rickard/Jake

One of the early design goals was to have the cocky teen and the jaded vet in the same party so yes its on the wish list. I'll make sure that Crunch is brought before Chris and will see what he comes back with. It might be it skips the main rule book though.

For character generation I have a real concern that with only 8 stats it'd be easy for bonuses and penalties to make characters deviate drastically. If there was an optional rule that special events did this would people be in favour?

Benn
_______________________________

Everyone's welcome in the pit!

Benn
avatar
Benn said Jul 21, 2014 22:45:19
let me be clearer

If there was an optional rule that special events in the life path granted concrete modifiers to the character in Stats and Skills would you be in favour?

Benn
_______________________________

Everyone's welcome in the pit!

Benn
This topic has been locked by a moderator, you can no longer reply.