So for no particular reason I started making giant robots (mecha) for the Mekton system recently.  Making Mecha in Mekton is fairly "math heavy" in that you might have to multiply by 3 or more different numbers just to make a weapon.  The advantage is that weapons are VERY customizable.  E.g.  A 7 damage projectile weapon with +1 accuracy, Multifeed 2 (can load two alternative types of projectiles at once), 50% normal range (4 hexes), All-purpose gun (against Mecha, missiles and people) would have a cost/space 7 * 1.5 * 1.2 * 0.75  = (7 * 1.35) = 9.45 which rounds to 9.5.  That's not even counting the ammunition, which could have several different multiplies depending on how fancy you want it.  There is also a lot of multipliers for the Mecha itself, like Maneuvering Verniers and special controls.   So players can get very into the details of their Mecha, but many don't like to do that much math. 

I think the solution is to find the part of the system that requires the most math and work out a lot of examples and how those examples got the numbers they did.  This allow players (and GMs) to make things easier if they just want an "off the shelf" item.  Showing how the item got the numbers it did allows people to tweek the example.  So if you want the 5 damage version of the above you could see that it's got a multiplier of 1.35 and figure out that it costs/displaces 6.75 => 6.8 CP/spaces.  It would take some work to figure out 20 examples of each type of system.  It wouldn't be hard though and you should be doing it as part of playtesting anyway.  If players aren't interested in trying out the details maybe they're unnecessary.  There are people (like me) who like making things in games and it wouldn't be hard to get them to knock up a few dozen. 

This way the GMs can have an idea of what's possible and the examples can be part of the game world (e.g. The Scrapper, an easily destroyed mecha I designed that is incredibly cheap and has real firepower. In-world it could be a joke, a sign that your opponents are fanatical enough to fight in almost unarmored machines or just the spare mecha you have in case of breakdown because it's cheap).   

Ars Magica has literally hundreds of spells for Hermatic mages, even though with the rules the PCs could have entirely custom spells the players designed from scratch.  There is also the option to change some parts of standard spell (e.g. change the range from voice to touch, making it easier to cast).  So the level of work/math involved is entirely up to the player (or GM if he's making spells for an NPC).   

Use an old-fashioned HP calculator with reverse Polish notation. It's actually faster when you're used to it, and it just makes the gaming table more interesting 😀

Quote from: Livemike on August 11, 2021, 11:01:53 AMI think the solution is to find the part of the system that requires the most math and work out a lot of examples and how those examples got the numbers they did.

Back in the day, I ran many a session of Champions and Fantasy Hero for people who were completely new to RPGs. These are some of the most complicated games ever made. I found it significantly easier for them to just describe the character they wanted and I would quickly use the rules to build it. So there was no need for the players to understand how the game worked, let alone to do any math.

So, this is what I'm actually suggesting. Build a series of standard mechs for the players to start out with and then ask them what they would like to tweak: more armor, faster, better accuracy, etc. This is still just the same as what player's would do in any RPG that didn't have a complicated build system. If, after you've been playing awhile, a player shows an interest in the build system, then you can try and teach them. But that's a thing that's better left until after the game has survived a few sessions.

The full rules absolutely should have numerous examples.  For example, your bestiary should have lots of monsters. 

But having rules that determine how you create things (whether they're monsters or weapons) is also good to share.  If the process of making things is itself consistent, then making lots of examples that showcase the rules is not only helpful, but an important test of the system.  If you find that you CAN'T create things that NEED to exist, you need to alter your rules - tackling multiple examples helps make sure that the system does produce the output.  And if you've already tested the system, there's no reason NOT to share the results. 

Quote from: Livemike on August 11, 2021, 11:01:53 AM
So for no particular reason I started making giant robots (mecha) for the Mekton system recently.  Making Mecha in Mekton is fairly "math heavy" in that you might have to multiply by 3 or more different numbers just to make a weapon.  The advantage is that weapons are VERY customizable.  E.g.  A 7 damage projectile weapon with +1 accuracy, Multifeed 2 (can load two alternative types of projectiles at once), 50% normal range (4 hexes), All-purpose gun (against Mecha, missiles and people) would have a cost/space 7 * 1.5 * 1.2 * 0.75  = (7 * 1.35) = 9.45 which rounds to 9.5.  That's not even counting the ammunition, which could have several different multiplies depending on how fancy you want it.  There is also a lot of multipliers for the Mecha itself, like Maneuvering Verniers and special controls.   So players can get very into the details of their Mecha, but many don't like to do that much math. 

That is only if you use the Mekton Techbook to design your mecha.

Quote from: Livemike on August 11, 2021, 11:01:53 AMI think the solution is to find the part of the system that requires the most math and work out a lot of examples and how those examples got the numbers they did.  This allow players (and GMs) to make things easier if they just want an "off the shelf" item.  Showing how the item got the numbers it did allows people to tweek the example.  So if you want the 5 damage version of the above you could see that it's got a multiplier of 1.35 and figure out that it costs/displaces 6.75 => 6.8 CP/spaces.  It would take some work to figure out 20 examples of each type of system.  It wouldn't be hard though and you should be doing it as part of playtesting anyway.  If players aren't interested in trying out the details maybe they're unnecessary.  There are people (like me) who like making things in games and it wouldn't be hard to get them to knock up a few dozen. 

This way the GMs can have an idea of what's possible and the examples can be part of the game world (e.g. The Scrapper, an easily destroyed mecha I designed that is incredibly cheap and has real firepower. In-world it could be a joke, a sign that your opponents are fanatical enough to fight in almost unarmored machines or just the spare mecha you have in case of breakdown because it's cheap).   

Or you could just use the Mekton core rulebook which has a simpler and easier mecha design system, very similar to what you have described.

My (admittedly snarky) advice is to go look for a copy of GURPS Vehicles for 3rd edition by David Pulver (use Ultra Tech and Space and Mecha and Robots too if you want)  and try to build a Strike SAP Pack VF1-s Valkyrie from Macross DYRL with it, and then when you get back to Mekton Zeta + from that, it will suddenly seem to be as easy as a slice of yellow cake (not uranium, the pastry) with cool whip frosting and crushed pineapple on it.

Another good general approach to address complex math in RPGs is precomputing as much as possible.  Frex, in my current game, a character's defense against melee, missile, grapple, and magic are all computed differently and have several elements to add up each; to mention just one, melee defense is roll + defense talent + weapon skill + armor + modifiers.  That's a bit more than I would want to add up each round.  But if I add up the talent, skill, and armor and call it "Melee defense with spear" on my character sheet, then it becomes simpler - I just have to add the roll and whatever modifiers the narrator tells me.

Quote from: palaeomerus on August 11, 2021, 11:17:41 PM
My (admittedly snarky) advice is to go look for a copy of GURPS Vehicles for 3rd edition by David Pulver (use Ultra Tech and Space and Mecha and Robots too if you want)  and try to build a Strike SAP Pack VF1-s Valkyrie from Macross DYRL with it, and then when you get back to Mekton Zeta + from that, it will suddenly seem to be as easy as a slice of yellow cake (not uranium, the pastry) with cool whip frosting and crushed pineapple on it.

It's also definitely worth noting that the painful calculations are really only an issue when you're building the machines and even then only if you're trying to enforce some sort of game balance between different designs... and there's a huge difference between outside of game complexity that can be done in the week between sessions and complexity at the table (which isn't actually that high for Mekton once you're just using what you built.

If you're NOT; if you're instead planning on running something like Macross or Gundam with standard issue machines; just give the machines what you think they should have and don't even worry about the points.

Personally, if I'm converting something from an existing franchise, I just use the total mass for a unit from the franchise (the Japanese LOVE giving numbers for those sorts of things) as the unmodified weight of all the servos and armor and just presume weight efficiency is used for everything else. Similarly, since Space Efficiency is a flat rate you can just take the total number of spaces all the equipment takes up, subtract the total spaces of the servos, and there's how many spaces you need to shave off at that flat rate of X CP per space.

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 14, 2021, 05:24:44 PM

Quote from: palaeomerus on August 11, 2021, 11:17:41 PM
My (admittedly snarky) advice is to go look for a copy of GURPS Vehicles for 3rd edition by David Pulver (use Ultra Tech and Space and Mecha and Robots too if you want)  and try to build a Strike SAP Pack VF1-s Valkyrie from Macross DYRL with it, and then when you get back to Mekton Zeta + from that, it will suddenly seem to be as easy as a slice of yellow cake (not uranium, the pastry) with cool whip frosting and crushed pineapple on it.

It's also definitely worth noting that the painful calculations are really only an issue when you're building the machines and even then only if you're trying to enforce some sort of game balance between different designs... and there's a huge difference between outside of game complexity that can be done in the week between sessions and complexity at the table (which isn't actually that high for Mekton once you're just using what you built.

If you're NOT; if you're instead planning on running something like Macross or Gundam with standard issue machines; just give the machines what you think they should have and don't even worry about the points.

That's how I approached it when I ran Wing Commander with the Mekton system. I used the very neat blueprints from the game documentation, eyeballed some numbers (I don't remember the details, but the damages and armor ratings were pretty close to the Mekton "Kills" system) and didn't worry about the math. But as the GM, I wasn't concerned about min-maxing. Just getting the ships close enough to feel like they were from the Wing Commander universe.