Any Battletech/MechWarrior Adaptations out There?

[kronovan]

Hello everyone, 1st time posting here.

I've been a GM of A Time of War (Battletech RPG) for the past few years and finally came to the conclusion that I really don't enjoy GMing those rules. My group of players and I also tried the recently released Mechwarrior Destiny, but that was even less to our tastes. Some of my Battletech players are also in MgT campaigns and are fans of the rules, so that's got me slowly adapting Battletech's Inner Sphere verse to MgT 2.0. My efforts also involves adapting it to the MgT 2 ruleset for Fantasy Grounds. I've made some good progress and are at the point of adapting Mechs to Walkers, which is quite a task even though I'm trying to only adapt them on an as needed basis.

So...I'm wondering if any MgT Referee might have attempted something similar - particularly the different Mechs?

 

[Ursus Maior]

I haven't first hand experience per se, but before MWestiny hit, I was toying with the idea of getting into either Traveller (MgT2) or modify the old MechWarrio 2nd edition rules for my liking. Essentially, those were 2d6 rules with some 3d6 rolls used in special situations. As such, they were extremely compatible with the boardgame and the contemporary rules of Classic Traveller.

As Mongoose's rules are close to CT and use mostly 2d6, conversions aren't a problem, really. BattleTech still is a 2d6 game and you mostly use two skills: gunnery and piloting for your respective vehicle. Mongoose rules support this by means of skills like Drive (Walker) and Heavy Weapon (Vehicle). If you want it easy, you should be able to grab some of the old MW2 rulebooks (rulebook and companion being the best choice, some of the publications are available on DriveThruRPG and Ebay) and convert the material necessary. You might want to fork of careers for specialty service branches, such as MechWarriors, battlesuit pilots etc., but the big chunk would be doing conversions of ships and mechs or vehicles. Personally, I would advise against that, in my eyes, it's not worth the hassle. Just use the BattleTech buidling systems as neither system (Traveller or BT) is too deeply routed in the main rules.

So, let's say you're rolling up a MechWarrior and he comes out with gunnery and piloting both at level 2, an average trained professional level. That would somehow have to be comparable to an average BattleTech pilot with gunnery 4+ and piloting 5+. But translated into BattleTech lore and rules, this is more like a +5/+5, given that a MechWarrior will probably also have above average (9+) DEX and INT. So, the remaining difference would have to come from somewhere else, likely equipment. You could create rules for the neuro-helmet for that, which should give a +1/+1. This would be in the range of augmentations found in the Central Supply Catalogue, i. e. the Cockpit Sensory Suite (p. 90, TL9) and the Nerve-plug Response Rig (p. 91, TL13), which give DM+1 to all Pilot, Drive, Flyer and Seafarer checks and DM+2 to all DEX checks made, respectively. Personally, I would go with making a neuro-helmet an external response rig, which is only half as good, since it's not in implant. This would leave room for a full response rig used by ProtoMech pilots.

Everythign else would be icing on the cake, so to speak. The Traveller j-drive and a BattleTech j-drive work different, sure, but that's more an in-game effect, and BattleTech gives you rules for building all its stuff. Traveller remains highly generic and the 2d6 system is very adaptable.

Those were my ideas from around a two years ago.

 

[kronovan]

Many thanks for the feedback and suggestions Ursus Maior - much appreciated.

I hear you on MechWarrior 2. I have that ruleset too and liked most things about it, but didn't care for how INTuition gave a big boost to PCs stats and liked even less how players exploited that. I did like the character archetypes for that edition. I'd have to say, that were I to uses those rules again, that there'd need to be a lot of house rules.

Personally, I would advise against that, in my eyes, it's not worth the hassle. Just use the BattleTech buidling systems as neither system (Traveller or BT) is too deeply routed in the main rules.

I'm not sure you're suggesting this with your comment, but Something I should probably mention is that I'm not keen on using the Battletech Total Warfare rules for combat. In my recent A Time of War campaign I've actually been using the Alpha Strike rules for combat encounters. The reason my group and I migrated to those, is because it's possible to do more than just a single combat encounter in a 4 hour game session. Whereas with the TW rules (or even the core AtoW rules), that encounter would take up the entire session leaving no time for exploration or roleplaying encounters - the latter being things my group of players enjoy. That got me looking at the possibility of using MgT 2 vehicle/mech combat rules which seem to be more in line with the crunch of AS. Something else...my campaign will be run online via Fantasy Grounds, so I'd be restricted to using the MgT 2 rules for vehicle building and stats. Were it to be a real world tabletop campaign, it would be a different story.

So, let's say you're rolling up a MechWarrior and he comes out with gunnery and piloting both at level 2, an average trained professional level. That would somehow have to be comparable to an average BattleTech pilot with gunnery 4+ and piloting 5+. But translated into BattleTech lore and rules, this is more like a +5/+5, given that a MechWarrior will probably also have above average (9+) DEX and INT. So, the remaining difference would have to come from somewhere else, likely equipment. You could create rules for the neuro-helmet for that, which should give a +1/+1. This would be in the range of augmentations found in the Central Supply Catalogue, i. e. the Cockpit Sensory Suite (p. 90, TL9) and the Nerve-plug Response Rig (p. 91, TL13), which give DM+1 to all Pilot, Drive, Flyer and Seafarer checks and DM+2 to all DEX checks made, respectively. Personally, I would go with making a neuro-helmet an external response rig, which is only half as good, since it's not in implant. This would leave room for a full response rig used by ProtoMech pilots.

This is terrific feedback. While I'm familiar with how to convert AtoW's Gunnery and Piloting skills to TW's Piloting and Gunnery and to AS's single unified skill, I haven't figured it all out for MgT 2. I also did something equivalent for the Savage Worlds RPG, as I ran a short campaign using the fan-made Savage Battletech adaptation.

Everythign else would be icing on the cake, so to speak. The Traveller j-drive and a BattleTech j-drive work different, sure, but that's more an in-game effect, and BattleTech gives you rules for building all its stuff. Traveller remains highly generic and the 2d6 system is very adaptable.

I'm an adherent to the "don't convert the rules, convert the flavor" mantra, so I'm in an agreement with all that. TBH I'm content with even using Drive (Walker) and Heavy Weapon (Vehicle) for a MechWarrior's skills and I know my group of players would be too. As I'm restricted to working with the MgT 2 ruleset for Fantasy Grounds, I'm going to have to make some compromises. As I mentioned in the OP though, from my early explorations using those rules seems very doable.

 

[Ursus Maior]

Glad to be of service, BT/MW is a great universe and Traveller has a splendid rule-system. I understoot that you used Alpha Strike, but also tinkered with MW: Destiny. How did you like the Mech combat rules in MW: Destiny? Could they be a compromise between MW2 and Alpha Strike?

 

[kronovan]

Glad to be of service, BT/MW is a great universe and Traveller has a splendid rule-system. I understoot that you used Alpha Strike, but also tinkered with MW: Destiny. How did you like the Mech combat rules in MW: Destiny? Could they be a compromise between MW2 and Alpha Strike?

My group and I didn't tinker with MW combat, as it was the beta and we wanted are play to be a true test or the rules. MW uses abstracted range bands for movement and shooting, which IMO make things more awkward than the equivalent in MgT 2 - and Savage Worlds for that matter. Then if you break out miniatures (who wouldn't for Mech combat in an official Battletech RPG?) the rules keeps Mechs so close on the tabletop that it makes using existing BT/TW maps difficult. I'm not a fan of range bands unless there's an implicit reason for having them, but they're at the very core of combat in MW. An equally undesirable feature of that RPG though, is that it has character traits solely for fluff and don't impact game play. If the GM runs things in a highly narrative way those traits could, but it's supposed to be a Battletech RPG not FATE.

Bottom line, I much prefer Alpha Strike combat to MW and even preferred the combat in Savage Battletech, which is a hybrid of Savage Worlds+Total Warfare. As I said above, due to using the Fantasy Grounds VTT, I'm restricted to using the MgT 2 rules for Mech/Walker and vehicle combat. Not a problem because I like the way those rules play, but using them does require some effort adapting BT Mechs to the MgT 2 vehicle (actually called Craft in FG MgT 2) sheet. Hence my question if anyone else has ever attempted such an adaptation.

 

[Giorgio3025]

Ask @kronovan , any updates on your BT/MW setting in the Fantasy Grounds MGT2 rules?
I plan on starting such a task in a few weeks, and I would be curious to see what you have already created.

 

[Jame Rowe]

I'd love to see an MGT or CT conversion for Mechwarrior too!

 

[Giorgio3025]

Hello everyone, 1st time posting here.

I've been a GM of A Time of War (Battletech RPG) for the past few years and finally came to the conclusion that I really don't enjoy GMing those rules. My group of players and I also tried the recently released Mechwarrior Destiny, but that was even less to our tastes. Some of my Battletech players are also in MgT campaigns and are fans of the rules, so that's got me slowly adapting Battletech's Inner Sphere verse to MgT 2.0. My efforts also involves adapting it to the MgT 2 ruleset for Fantasy Grounds. I've made some good progress and are at the point of adapting Mechs to Walkers, which is quite a task even though I'm trying to only adapt them on an as needed basis.

So...I'm wondering if any MgT Referee might have attempted something similar - particularly the different Mechs?

This is a something that was suggested for my own games:
“I think for a house rule I’d give mechs over 40 tons -1 Agility and over 70 tons -2 agility. Maybe do the same for speed bands as well. HTH mech combat is not covered in the rules.”
.
I have yet to do a deep dive into translating or adapting my own Mechwarrior 4E (ATOW) RPG campaign to Traveller 2E yet, I plan on doing so starting in July 2023. I will keep you in the loop when I do so.
.
Have you already gone about converting the ATOW skill packages by House/Organization to a Traveller 2E equivalent?

 

[GypsyComet]

Battletech (not MechWarrior) is already Traveller derived, so you just need to do some tweaking for Soc, place Mechs in one of the vehicle skills (which I think Mongoose already has or had, with legged vehicles being an option), and swap "Gunnery" for "Heavy Weapons".

 

[bytedruid]

I ran an AToW campaign for over three years and really enjoyed it. I'm fine with crunch all day long but I'm not the best at designing adventures, especially on a regular schedule with real life to attend to in between. Adventure modules are such a godsend for busy GMs that I'm strongly favoring running 2300AD for my next campaign since it looks like Mongoose publishes adventures on a regular basis. Battletech is a great universe, but Catalyst never seemed that interested in supporting their RPG line, had to search ebay for mods from the 90's when the idea well ran dry.

 

[GypsyComet]

I ran an AToW campaign for over three years

Has AToW had a re-edit? It's a shockingly bulky book for the material being covered, and has multi-page zones of impenetrable text.
Also, it really needs a better character sheet. Preferably one created by someone who has actually generated characters...

 

[bytedruid]

Has AToW had a re-edit? It's a shockingly bulky book for the material being covered, and has multi-page zones of impenetrable text.
Also, it really needs a better character sheet. Preferably one created by someone who has actually generated characters...

There's mechwarrior destiny now, but I haven't ever run a campaign with the new book. My campaign ran from about 2012 to about 2016, so I'm out of the loop these days and don't have any useful comments on new character sheets. And oh yea, you're right about the size of the book. AFAIK my players never read much of it, and it took me about a month of reading and mulling AToW over before kicking off the first play session. To run AToW you have to both (1) like crunch and (2) like simplifying crunch for players. Nonetheless, I'd probably run AToW again if Catalyst actually supported it. The batteltech universe has a lot to offer beyond big stompy robots, but that's all anyone wants to use it for.

Heck after living the spartan world of AToW, 2300 AD looks like RPG awesomeness! Every ship has an internal deck plan (would have paid real money for Mule & Leopard blueprints), there's adventures to purchase, a really cool take on character creation, and Mongoose looks like they will keep printing 2300 material for some time to come. The big thing I feel like is missing from 2300 AD is good rules for running battles on a grid map with miniatures for people used to that sort of play. If you know where I should look for those, I'd happily take any pointers.

 

[bytedruid]

I've made some good progress and are at the point of adapting Mechs to Walkers

How is the adaptation of Mechs to walkers going? Care to elaborate on any of your results and challenges?

 

[GypsyComet]

The big thing I feel like is missing from 2300 AD is good rules for running battles on a grid map with miniatures for people used to that sort of play. If you know where I should look for those, I'd happily take any pointers.

I haven't looked at 2300AD's prior incarnations, but my impression is that stutterwarp renders tactical movement largely inertialess. You aren't vectoring around a map grid so much as speedboating. That means a number of more "cinematic" space games can be adapted. The two that comes to mind, based on the relatively narrow size range of 2300AD ships, are Full Thrust and Silent Death. Both feature design systems, though you would need to do some weapons work. They use speedboat movement (though FT also has a vector option) so you see "turn modes" instead of vector drifts.

 

[Giorgio3025]

I ran an AToW campaign for over three years and really enjoyed it. I'm fine with crunch all day long but I'm not the best at designing adventures, especially on a regular schedule with real life to attend to in between. Adventure modules are such a godsend for busy GMs that I'm strongly favoring running 2300AD for my next campaign since it looks like Mongoose publishes adventures on a regular basis. Battletech is a great universe, but Catalyst never seemed that interested in supporting their RPG line, had to search ebay for mods from the 90's when the idea well ran dry.

BT/MW RPG has never had strong module, campaigns, or Adventure Paths equivalents support, and that is one of the reasons I beleive the RPG line never was as robust as it could be. I too plan on taking many MGT2 adventures and "porting them over" to the BT universe, as there is so much work already done for us busy GMs. I was planning on doing so in May, but many unexpected health/work issues is going to push that into June 2023.

 

[Giorgio3025]

Has AToW had a re-edit? It's a shockingly bulky book for the material being covered, and has multi-page zones of impenetrable text.
Also, it really needs a better character sheet. Preferably one created by someone who has actually generated characters...

A revised edition in that some chapters were re-written for better clarity, and is now in print after over a decade of not being in print, but fundementaly the new ATOW is similar to the previous version.

 

[Giorgio3025]

How is the adaptation of Mechs to walkers going? Care to elaborate on any of your results and challenges?

I too want to know, before I start diving into this heavily next month (August 2023), I still have to get the Robots book, and some TAS PFDs on related subjects on Drivethrurpg before I start making my own vehicles and mechs. That, and figure out the Vehicle Excel designer sheet I found here...
.
(Edited: I now have the Robotics Handbook, High Guard 2022 Update, and CSC 2023 Update thanks to various PDF bundle sales.)

 

[Giorgio3025]

Battletech (not MechWarrior) is already Traveller derived, so you just need to do some tweaking for Soc, place Mechs in one of the vehicle skills (which I think Mongoose already has or had, with legged vehicles being an option), and swap "Gunnery" for "Heavy Weapons".

As I work on my own BT/MW conversion (in a new thread), what are your thoughts on addapting the 30 light-year instantanous jumpdrive of BT with their Traveller equivalents, and the impact of lack of grav tech in the BT universe, compared to its Traveller TI counterpart tech baseline?

 

[GypsyComet]

The range of FTL and the map scale need to get along. The "real world" numbers don't really matter as long as that happens.

Landing craft in a setting with no gravity tech fall into two camps by necessity: Aerodynamic and/or Brute Force. The two have significant overlap even normally, but since FTL in the BT universe is always from stellar pole to stellar pole, ALL landing craft are going to have a lot of muscle just to get to the deployment world, much less land. Most are also going to be built as perpendicular deck designs ("Tail sitters"). We already see these trends in BT, so conversion is purely mechanical instead of conceptual.

 

[GypsyComet]

BT/MW RPG has never had strong module, campaigns, or Adventure Paths equivalents support, and that is one of the reasons I beleive the RPG line never was as robust as it could be.

Much of the RPG's tone in any of its incarnations that I've read conveys the impression that the RPGs exist primarily to frame campaign games of BT. The RPG's missing campaign material is found on the war-game side. That this has survived multiple editions and IP custodians suggests that it is on purpose.