OBT Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

AU Developers - Please PM Knightmare or MechRat if you need board or permission changes

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style  (Read 818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« on: July 30, 2013, 02:55:17 PM »
we have most, though not all of the TRO 3145 unveieled now, and a pattern has emerged from the writings I felt the need to address.  one of the more traditional elements of TROS was that the Capabilities section was a parroting of the Record Sheet more then anything else.  3145 seems to be attempting to change direction by emphasizing deployments, something which I appreciate.

as I was going through both these new TROs and some of the older ones though i found something else I would have preferred.  for want of a better way to put it, an emphasis in military capabilities that does not have an impact on game rules might be a better use of the space.  for example in the old Atlas entry in TRO 3025, precious words were spent discussing how the Long Range Missile Launcher only had five firing tubes and used a rapid reloading system to get the missiles out in 4 bursts of 5 missiles.  as another example the Wraith in TRO 3055 went on to talk about the mechs warranty and service contract versus design costs.  Finally the Celestial Omnimechs weave in their capabilities how the six designs were built to work in close conjunction with each other.

I am wondering if more emphasis on that rather then the Deployment or Record Sheet Parroting would be the way to go.  what do you guys think?
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

Bad_Syntax

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2013, 03:28:19 PM »
I guess if I was doing a TRO, I'd rather see:

16% Overview:  purpose and use for design
16% Design:  How the unit came to be, prototype history, years of introduction, some early variants, etc
33% History:  Little stories about the units in use.  I always loved these, and can still remember most I've read that were interesting
16% Variants:  Listing of variants, though why rather than details would be better when the RS's are in the same product
16% Deployment:  When each factory came online/went offline, why, where their production runs went, how rare they now are if out of production

I'd be fine with the following going away, since it is useless, inconsistent, and often missing anyway:
Communications System
Targeting & Tracking System
Jump Jet Manufacturer
Engine Manufacturer
Chassis/Frame Manufacturer
Cruising Speed
Maximum Speed
Jump Jet Distance
Armor Manufacturer
Weapon Manufacturers - maybe on this, it'd be neat if we had a list of weapons and minor abilities in game they provide as an option, but if not it has no need

Along one of the edges, a small picture of each faction, with a 0-9 number (or some dots/icons/etc) beside each showing the commonality of the design, plus, an overall #/etc for overall commonality compared to other designs.

Right side:
Armor/structure types/points would be listed beside the numbers, to better support patchwork armor and frankenmechs.  Also add cost, year, tech rating, and availability for early/middle/late.  Add support for where armor/structure slots are, as well as heat sinks, so the RS isn't mandatory to recreate the design.

I never cared for a huge description of a weapon, or worse a communications/targeting system, none of which really mattered and always just felt like it was padding and not creative writing to me.  The parts of the writing I've always remembered most were the battle histories.  In fact, some of my favorites:

All from 3025 for some reason, and all vehicles?!?!?!
Neptune Submarine
Behemoth Tank
Sea Skimmer's Hydrofoil
Harasser VTOLs
SRM/LRM Carriers
Bulldog Tank
Hi-Scout
Savannah Master
Monitor
Logged
Visit BattleTech Engineer (http://btengineer.blogspot.com/), home of the BattleTech Encyclopedia (http://bte.battletechengineer.com/bte)

skiltao

  • Kavallerist
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2013, 03:18:48 PM »
Hey JP, did you happen to pick up the full TRO at the con?
Logged

Dread Moores

  • Overste
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 740
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2013, 07:50:27 PM »
I could live with the rest, if they had simply stuck in a sentence or two on "Here's who generally has access to this unit" universally across the designs. Some have it, some don't. Yes, I realize the MUL will eventually have this info. No, I don't think feel that's enough. It effectively excludes any purchasers who aren't hooked into the online community (as I don't recall any MUL links in the TRO itself, but I may be mistaken there), and with the limited resources CGL and/or the MUL team has available, that's one more drain on their time. It's one more thing the fans end up waiting for. I just don't see why that one line had to be dropped from the format. Parroting the record sheet, yeah, that can definitely go. Putting out TROs only when record sheets are ready, that's also a great addition, so you don't run into the '75/ '85 issues. (Are there still some record sheets from '75 that haven't been done? I don't even remember anymore.) Just give me the one deployment line back already. Heck, give me a list of faction abbreviations in the stat block. :)
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 07:51:33 PM by Dread Moores »
Logged
The first one to use the term Dork Age loses.

Red Pins

  • KU Player
  • Generalmajor
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 825
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2013, 08:07:53 PM »
Tagged.
Logged

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2013, 11:37:08 PM »
Capabilities is in my opinion the hardest section to write cause you are parroting the design specs. If you throw in some design quirks fine but there isn't much else your basically rehashing what the numbers tell you already. Now god knows I hate double work but leaving them out entirely wouldn't be right or BattleTechish.
Logged

skiltao

  • Kavallerist
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2013, 01:28:38 AM »
"Capabilities" should also be covering tactics, usage, how to approach different kinds of missions (terrain, opponents, strategic movements, known support), endurance over multiple fights and multiple months, specific maintenance or supply issues, reputation, where it fits into regimental organization... probably other things as well.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 01:29:02 AM by skiltao »
Logged

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2013, 08:21:36 AM »
True, you can talk about what designers were trying to do with this creation and how it worked out but sometimes that makes it into overview. Just like tactics could slide into the deployment section.
Logged

skiltao

  • Kavallerist
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2013, 02:46:53 PM »
You can slide anything anywhere, but that's just sloppy and disorganized.  :-\  (For instance, "Notable Machines and Combatants" is the absolute wrong place to transcribe a battle. Fortunately Catalyst has gotten better about that.)

The historic overview of intention, development and current use does indeed belong in Overview. But the practical details of how to play the thing within a campaign or RPG (whether that's traits and context, advice to the player, or NPC flavor tactics) are a separate and distinct subject. Battle History doesn't address tactics the same way - it's more about object lessons in the use/misuse (and fallout) of tactics, or introducing specific rarer tricks used by various groups.

For the record, a Deployment section, one that uses the actual word "Deployment" as its header, is supposed to focus first and foremost on elaborating the unit's distribution and availability. (I say "elaborating" because the Overview is supposed to include the brief line Dread Moores asks for.)
Logged

Ken

  • Bethlens' Irregulars
  • Hexare Grenadier
  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 240
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2013, 09:24:21 AM »
Prior to this TRO, the past few were straightjacketed by having everything be brand new, never used. When there was no battle history or notable pilots, talking about the design's make up was about all there was. Blech, glad they finally changed that.
Logged

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2013, 11:04:18 AM »
at least before Catalysts tenure when you gusy decided to give the inner sphere a little more knowlege about what the SLDF did with things like the Talon, Galahad, ETC.
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

skiltao

  • Kavallerist
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Debate topic: New TRO Writing Style
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2013, 02:35:46 PM »
Yeah, 3085 and Prototypes didn't give you guys much to work. [Edit: "much to work with." Not sure how I lost the "with." ]

...and I don't remember if those books at all tackled the stuff JPA talks about in the OP.  :-[
« Last Edit: September 24, 2013, 11:47:07 PM by skiltao »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »