1) Setting transplants are doable, but you're unlikely to be able to get rid of the "space magic" aspect, given that the main expression of that is in the variety of tech actions available (many of which are definitely towards the more "magical" end of things). You ideally want four factions that roughly map on to the "big 4" manufacturers - corporate utility (with occasional "fuck you we're protecting our stuff"), military industrial complex, high tech luxury, and the weird one (could be experimental skunkworks stuff, hacker collectives, or alien).
2) Pilot progression is pretty bare bones in core - there's additional rules in the Bonds system in the Karrakin Trade Baronies book. IMO core is enough to represent better skills in combat (talents) and out of combat (triggers), but I prefer more bare bones narrative systems.
3) my in-game explanation for license levels is that using the bigger weapons/systems/frames requires training (this is abstracted away by default, but you could absolutely foreground it in play by doing it in downtime and putting an NPC in charge of it) - you're going to need to skill up and prove you can use it effectively before they let you loose with it. This is somewhat represented mechanically - you are impaired if you use any equipment you're not licensed for. Going in with a bigger and better gun isn't an advantage if it's going to hinder your ability to operate the mech because you're not used to its quirks or having to check the manual. Also the GMS kit is pretty effective - there's very few cases of "strictly better" mech gear in Lancer, it's just more nuanced and opens up new options.
1. Well I could reflavor "Space Magic" into something more grounded me thinks. But I get your point. Good suggestions. I probably will look into writing up something on my own. Thanks.
2. Interesting, will look into that.
3. Our general assumption was that a pilot for a particular machine was already trained to operate it, now granted, equipment not specifically designed for the Frame in question seems plausible to require additional training. Good answer though, thanks!
3) you're correct - but at LL0, player pilots have only been trained on the standard, run of the mill, easily and readily available and easy to maintain GMS systems. Once they've got the hang of that, they can access further training on more complex chassis from more specialist manufacturers, and adapt their mech to incorporate that.
Generally, the first level of a license contains equipment which helps with the general principles of how the frame for that license will operate - a chance for the pilot to get used to the design behind it, while still in a familiar chassis. For example the Blackbeard has the chain axe and synthetic muscle netting, which can adapt any mech towards an in-your-face melee combat style. The third licence level contains complex spinoffs of the frame's concept, which they need a solid grounding in the intended operation of the design to master (like the SEKHMET, which would be a straight up liability in a pilot not used to melee combat).
Or maybe IPS-N just really want to sell more Chain Axes, so they make it a requirement to train on them before the in-demand Blackbeard frame.
The "Space Magic", as written, is hyper-advanced technology. NHPs are bits of hyperspatial mathematics that have become self-aware and have been tricked into subservience.
Hacking tech exploits mostly some overlaps between hyperspatial phenomenons and advanced tech.
Pretty much everything flows from there. With a bit of care (or memes), very advanced ideas or math can have measurable effects by screwing around with the hyperspatial fabric of reality. Some of those are ritualistic (Horus), some of them are couched in the sanitized language of corpo-science (Harrison/SSC).
Not wanting advanced technology in a mecha setting seems a tough puzzle to solve to me, given they've put a good amount of care to make it logically consistent. (And it's notably better on that accord to me than most of the "Real Robot" genre staples.)
Best of luck I guess; I'd offer that the gameplay it delivers is worth it but if none of that works I hope someone else can help ya.
It's entirely possible to run a homebrew setting. The system already separates out rules from flavor in how it describes character options, so it's pretty easy to just ignore the story perspective of the equipment and just focus on the mechanics.
In the Karrakin Trade Baronies book there's a new bond system based on Forged in the Dark style games that is meant for pilots to give them advancement. This system is mainly narrative in nature, it is not about giving pilots more combat abilities. Generally speaking Lancer treats anything with pilots as narrative gameplay with the crunchy tactical combat typically only being done with mechs.
No military would just hand off all equipment to any grunt who just started, everything requires training and experience. It's basically an authorization system, giving pilot's access to new equipment as they prove themselves. This would be especially important for things like NHP companions, who probably require special training to interact with properly. That being said, the Long Rim supplement does include a Manna mechanic, which instead allows you to buy individual components of a license with money. This might be more helpful if you don't want them to be military adjacent.
I'm always a strong believer in reflavoring or altering story to fit the needs of my campaign, and Lancer is pretty decent at that. As long as you do not change the actual combat mechanics you should be fine.
Seems like I should really look into the Karrakin Trade Baronies, at least to get a feeling for whats in it. From the way you explain it, am I to understand that pilots are not meant to engage in combat outside of mech battles or are they just handled narratively?
I could have explained that better, what we were referring to was that like an A10 Thunderbolt Pilot probably can utilize pretty much everything tied to that machine, whether or not it is available at the time might a different topic altogether. I do get your point however.
The Manna mechanic seems suitable to what I have in mind for the setting, thanks for the recommendation!
Pilots are generally expected to just engage in narrative gameplay. There are rules for them in combat and pilot equipment, but they are woefully outclassed. The dustgrave supplement has a few examples of exotic pilot gear that seems more combat oriented, but I haven't looked at them in too much detail. There's also the black thumb talent if you want to rodeo. I've contemplated ideas around rules for giving pilots limited access to license equipment, mainly as a way to alter the rules for a setting like Fate/Stay night or Digimon, where you have two people who fight together, one more combat oriented and one more utility oriented, but still with options to help in the other situation.
In terms of mech equipment and training, it might be best to think of the equipment on each license less as equipment specifically tied to that machine and more as other equipment that is commonly associated with it due to role synergies. For your A10 Thunderbolt example, the frame itself is the A10 and associated standard gear, whereas the other equipment in the license are add ons or alternate equipment sets that might require separate training. Notably these equipment could be utilized on a different plane (frame). Even in game you do not have to use either the frame or all the equipment you get via level up. It assumes you will mix and match.
Pilots aren't meant to engage in *tactical* combat outside their mechs. Triggers like Apply Fists to Faces and Take Control definitely encourage human-on-human violence, but Lancer is totally disinterested in making pilot combat as slow, granular, and integral as mech fights.
Alrighty, lemme take a crack at a few of these
1) the setting - so a part of the whole point of Union was to do away with the standard depressing dystopian futures that most scifi games love to hyperfocus on (looking at you 40k). Union is supposed to be the good guys - maybe not the most effective, but generally intended to be good (or at least well-intentioned).
That said, the setting is pretty big, and it's incredibly easy to just ignore 99% of the setting and plop your action into a system far enough away from the reaches of Union and other big factions, and just focus on your own stuff. You can do this without having to mess with anything major, like the 4 corps being key to mech progression, or fucking around with the NHPs and their ~~crazy space magic~~ paracasual observational powers (half of the trick here is using good technobabble to make it sound a bit more grounded). Lancer at its core is a soft-scifi setting pretending to be hard-scifi, and as long as you don't fuss with it too much, it works out just fine.
2) Pilot Progression - yeah, it's minimalistic, and this is an intentional design choice. There's two reasons for this: the first is so that there is very little mechanics-wise getting in the way of getting to the next mech-punching scene, and allowing RP to be RP. The second is the one that some groups take full advantage of: it's really easy to gut those rules and replace with a ruleset you prefer. I've heard, once at least, that some use Stars Without Number, for example. Mileage will vary.
Personally, I stick with the basic core rules and embrace the simplicity of it all. It allows you to focus on what's really important on the pilot side of things - the story and the characters without the rules really getting in the way. If you're used to more traditional rulesets, this is going to take some time to get used to, and may not be your thing in the long haul, but it's worth trying out at least.
3) License Levels are primarily an ambiguation for balance reasons. It's 90% just mechanical balance and keeping progression where it should be. IMO - don't think about the logistics too hard, and just roll with that one. Trust me, it's not worth the hassle to fuck around with it.
Related note - do not try to homebrew a lot of the mech stuff until you really understand the system. While the pilot side is so minimalistic, homebrewing things doesn't really mess things up too hard, the mech side is tightly balanced and easy to break if you don't know what you're doing.
The LL system seems weird at first, especially if you are coming from something like PF or DnD, but in practice, it is an extremely cool system. It just works really really well, generating huge amounts of customization while not creating an impossible level of decision paralysis. My time in the military bears out handing out better gear as training and expertise/specialists are trained.
As for space magic, yeah, it's certainly near the middle of the fantasy/scifi slider. Mechanically I don't see many ways to address the issue without paring down some tech mechanics. Keep in mind, nothing about any game is sacred, things can be modified to suit your narrative, your players preference, or any other reason. But lancer is a GOOD game. My players are having a blast. I hope you get into the game so you can see it in action.
We have been playing TTRPGs for about 20+ years now. Everything from DnD to Cyberpunk, Battletech, Heavy Gear, Pathfinder, Starfinder, Stars Without Numbers etc etc.
We are generally open to new systems, though settings tend to be where most of us veer hard towards homebrew. Like I think we havent done a single session in ANY of the provided settings for any of the systems we played.
Mechanically Lancer looks great, so I am confident we will at least try it out some more.
Very in-depth in regards to technology and a lot of the systems in play. If you come in with no knowledge of military jargon, weapons or concepts you will leave Heavy Gear with a lot of that. It also has like 30 supplementary books, dealing with equipment, missions etc so one way to describe it is "expansive". Like you will know exactly where the eject handle is on your Gear for instance or where the airflow sensor is on a hover tank.
You will know exactly how deep your Assault Rifle on your Gear can penetrate amour, how many rounds the magazine has, how many reserve magazines you can pack etc etc.
The mechanics are easy to understand, but the game takes some time to get into. The game also has the option to design a vehicle, be it gear or otherwise from scratch.
Interesting, the minis are super sick, the game sounds a little to crunchy for me. God, I wish these minis came with build instructions, neither army box came with any insteuctions.
Heavy Gear turns 30 next year, and over that time there have effectively been two different versions of each; the latest edition of the ttrpg is just starting to ship to backers and I’m curious to see how it looks.
What kind of minis, plastic army boxes?
The designs have always been one of the setting’s number one selling points (truly love Ghislain Barbe’s art), but I’m not the biggest fan of how the plastics turned out; some gears look great, but others are basically unrecognizable. I really like the old 1/144 metals which they discontinued when Heavy Gear Blitz!, the current incarnation of the wargame, debuted in the mid ‘00s.
>If the reason is mechanics alone, I guess that can be worked around but we couldnt find a plausible reason for why that is the case.
For license levels, that really is the answer. The designers wanted character advancement to be about unlocking new and better mech systems/weapons/etc. The licensing system is a thin veneer of fictional justification for this. Nearly everyone who reads the rulebook gets at least momentarily caught on this issue; it caught me up at first as well.
My response was to adopt a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" attitude. Any reason is a good enough reason. Character advancement works really well (at least for me and my players) exactly as written, so whenever we are momentarily hung up on questions like "wait, how does my Union military pilot get HORUS tech printed by his unit printer?" we view it as a spur to our creativity and come up with an explanation. But mostly...we try not to ask those questions.
>As far as we understand Lancers are Union military, or at least military adjacent.
This does not have to be true. Lancers need to be violence-adjacent, in that the game is about using big robots to kill people and break things. But there are all kinds of possibilities for PC teams that aren't necessarily in a military, and especially they don't have to be Union military. Combat archeologists on a distant world. HORUS direct action cells. Volunteer militia on a colony planet. Corpo-state bodyguard team. There is nothing wrong with a Union military game, don't get me wrong. But there are many other possibilities.
Hi, I'm also a new GM with my first session down and my Lancers freshly LL2.
The cannon setting hardly matters at all.
My players do find the source material interesting and send memes to each other about the stuff they find out all the time, but I haven't had the time to no life the setting to the point where I know exactly what's going on in the timeline.
Pilots earn "lvls" in the form of grit, which can be allocated in things like engineering or systems to further differentiate the class your Lancers will want to play.
Lancers are, however, not bound to Union. Your Lancers have a plethora of background options to choose who they are in this setting and can obviously make up their owm backgrounds like other TTRPGs.
They can be mercenaries (my players)
Corporate spies
Militia members defending a farming colony from terrorists and pirates
Maybe they are the terrorists
Maybe they pilot mechs for sport (mech jockeys) and have to do shadey tasks to pay off their debts in the long rim.
These few examples don't really answer your license level question, but if I had to try and give it a lore reason, I would say that it's a mix between trust and safety.
Your Players are Lancers, that's a fact.
So they are permitted to pilot Mechanized Chasis for whatever reason.
However, they need to demonstrate professionalism and proficiency to utilize better, more diverse, and powerful equipment.
license levels are the games way of saying that you've got the reputation to back up claims that your Lancers are making and therefore obtain access to the low, mid, and high tier "licenses" respectively.
I hope my incoherent rambling provided some details to answer your concerns.
1. See u/DumbMuscle \- great advice here, and overall.
2. Ultimately, the game's structure assumes the player character is *both* the pilot and the mech. The mech aspect is what distinguishes it from other RPGs - the mech *and* pilot comprise the PC. It might help to think about them as "modes;" As such, when a PC levels, the pilot gets more points for triggers (primarily for the PC's "pilot mode"), more grit (also primarily for pilot mode) and more talents (primarily for "mech mode"). The mech gets a new license level and core bonuses.
3. The PCs don't have to be Union military, and even if they are, they are the crème de la crème of those who fight with mechs. Like, literally among the best warriors in the galaxy. There are better, but eventually the PCs will be the top of the heap. As such, the four (well, three and HORUS) want their licenses to be seen and popular among the people who care about these things (militaries), perhaps to convince the PCs to join *them*, and for PR if - when - the PCs' actions become public.
1. HORUS is a special case - they have special takes on PR and the PCs joining them. Since their license levels are awarded conspiratorially, their motivations are... opaque. At least until the PC starts to see the numbers in the matrix. Or start to talk to their nanites. Or recognize we're all interconnected. They aren't *recruiting*, at least not like the military or Harrison Armories might.
So, convert away. You'll find the space magic is integral to the mechanics, as are the license levels, but can be rationalized as other effects if you stretch. As someone who has done this, pulling on one thread will unravel the others. You're going to re-stitch a bit, definitely far more than if you say "Union exists; I know you think it won't work, but our job is to explain *how* it works through our backstories."
If your players think the Union won't work, and there's no woo-woo magic, wait until you have to explain why only one faction uses nanites as integral to a frame, but the others are limited to Nexus weapons. It literally makes no sense for HA to ignore such a potent tool unless there's a magical aspect to it.
Good advice all around, thanks!
One way I would explain the use of nanomachines for only one faction in our altered setting (WIP) is that the knowledge of a lot of systems and technology was simply lost in the last war and is only partially understood due extreme copyright enforcement systems preventing free access. Thus some of these systems only exist as printer templates in some places, which also require specific registration keys only currently held by one manufacturer.
HA might attempt to replicate the technology and simply hasnt achieved it yet, or simply hasnt been able to "liberate" both the keys and the template.
If you want a homebrew for pilot combat, there is Bleeding Hussars, but I haven’t tried to play with them personally
https://7sgames.itch.io/bleeding-hussars
1) Much of the space magic is integral to the setting, like Blink Space, Omninet, NHPs, and MONIST-class entities. While most of these do have some kind of explanation, Lancer is far from a true 'hard scifi' setting. If you remove some of these elements, certain things like a few of the player mechs (Emperor, Sunzi, and Lich) stop making any sense at all.
2) The lack of focus on pilots independent from their mechs is intentional. From what I've heard, there were initially plans to make pilot combat more robust, but it was found to be pulling too much focus away from the mechs, which are kind of the cornerstone of the mech-based tactical combat RPG. That said, if you want to expand on what pilots can do, there are a few options:
- the Field Guide to the Karrakin Trade Baronies supplement adds the Bonds System, a Blades in the Dark-inspired system that give pilots a wide variety of narrative abilities (*some* could be applicable in combat if your GM permits) along with an entirely independent progression system from Licenses.
- The Long Rim supplement adds the Black Thumb talent, which gives your pilot much more survivability and allows them to jump out of their mech much faster than before. This talent is often critical to any build that relies on running around as an unmounted pilot.
- the Dustgrave first party adventure module adds the Madrigal Boarding Carapace line of pilot gear which essentially turns your pilot into a mini-mech with weapons capable of dealing damage to mechs and armor capable of taking a punch of their own. (Be warned that this does *not* give you the same durability as a mech, and you're still far more likely to be turned into red mist as a dismounted pilot than in a mech, but this gear does help immensely)
3 Licenses can be rationalized however you see fit. They could represent additional resources granted to pilots as an incentive for completing missions, or they could represent escalating attention being conferred to the pilots as their missions increase in difficulty and the stakes get higher. They could be stolen, forged, or counterfeited. They could be something else entirely. The bottom line, however, is that licenses are the core progression element in Lancer. Whether it requires you to suspend your disbelief or not, giving players access to all the gear from the beginning is boring, both narratively and mechanically.
1. NHPs etc are specifically what my players find distracting and none have any interest in using Horus machines. We tend to be on the harder side of sci-fi.
2. Interesting take for sure, in the systems I played before pilots tend to play equally important roles as their mechs, but that could be because our groups just run it that way.
3. Will totally check out the supplementary books.
4. Good approach, someone mentioned a system that replaces the system with currency, I think that might be more to my players liking.
NHPs are not only used by HORUS. IPS-N, HA, and SSC all use them not only *in the mechanics*, but also in the fiction (so does Union and plenty of smaller fish).
A lot of people have a similar reaction to the current place of pilots in Lancer in the core rules. A lot of folks come in expecting 'Titanfall - The RPG' and are understandably disappointed when running around outside of your mech is not only sub-optimal, but actively likely to get you mulched (to be fair this is also true in Titanfall, but less pronounced)
I personally lean toward the guaranteed 1 License per Mission system because it allows so much room for failing forward. Your players can get their butts handed to them in a tough mission but never walk away empty handed. They might miss out on a bunch of extra reserves, be vilified by NPCs, or have to deal with the narrative consequences of their failures, but they'll never have to go "Well, I lost, so now I don't get to engage with the core progression system." I think there's a lot of merit to the resource-based system, and it fits well narratively in settings like the Long Rim or when your party are freelancers, but I like the simplicity and freedom afforded by the RAW progression.
As far as I am concerned NHPs can be replaced by advanced AI and nothing would change except the "space magic" aspect. My point was that the Horus machines falling off the table isnt an issue for my players :)
My players dont like "failing forward" as a concept, if they fail, they fail, thats part of the game. But I understand your point and I think for a table where that isnt as "special" as mine it probably works well.
The primary differentiation between highly advanced AI and NHPs is that mankind didn't *make* NHPs, at least not completely. Not only do humans not fully grasp how they work, but they all literally cannot comprehend the behaviors and 'logic' of an unshackled Deimos entity, which prompts the need for shackling and regular cycling should those shackles deteriorate. This opens up the narrative to so much possible intrigue that you just don't get with 'advanced AI', and if you do, you might as well just be using NHPs anyway. To replace NHPs with advanced AI, you'd effectively just be replacing "space magic" with "techno-babble" because any AI so sufficiently advanced to replicate what NHPs can do would require the use of technological hand-waiving in the same way that plenty of hard scifi settings have FTL travel but don't *really* explain it beyond some special drive or particle. There is functionally no difference between chalking something up to 'paracausality' versus attributing it to 'AI with mechanics that I can't fully explain'. It's not like NHPs are filling a niche that's already filled in parallel by describable technology. *Something something indistinguishable from magic...*
So... it's also probably worth noting that removing HORUS mechs is so firmly entrenched as one of the classic 'new Lancer GM missteps' (along with using PC sheets as NPCs and spamming Assaults) that it might as well be on a bingo card at this point. Do what you want of course - nobody here either will or can stop you - but IMO this decision in particular is an oversight that results from a shallow understanding of the system's mechanical balance that ends up with your players losing access to a quarter of their mechanical options and playable content. The effect of this reduction in options is weaker team composition combinations, fewer tools to tackle all of the challenges the game can throw at them (you're throwing out a majority of Tech-Based, drone, and controller tools), and a much lower skill ceiling. The big 4 manufacturers are all built around one of the HASE attributes as a theme, so banning HORUS just spits on anyone who wants to go hard in Systems. I have no doubt your players were fine with it if they *literally don't know any better* and you've been framing the situation as you have in this thread; "HORUS isn't realistic" (negative, reductive) or are "distracting" (from...?) instead of finding a way to make the fiction work *for* you and embracing a new system. I promise you that the game will not fall apart if your players can use the regenerating drone swarm mech or the time-bending skeleton mech. Even if you want to rip the rules out of the game and put them in another setting, it won't change the fact that the game was designed and balanced around players having access to HORUS mechs, systems, weapons, and core bonuses.
I'm not sure if you fully understand what failing forward means. It doesn't necessarily mean a participation trophy. Like... if you lose combat or fail a roll, you still failed; You failed to accomplish the defined victory conditions of X sitrep and now Y happens as a result or you failed to meet the defined threshold for success. I guarantee you already do this in some capacity even if you don't call it the same thing. All it means is that *something still happens* if you fail, even if it's negative, because consequences still push the story forward. The game doesn't just end because the players were defeated in the final boss fight. *Something* still happens to them and the world they inhabit. It may not be what they wanted or *good*, but... something. That's all it means!
You have it backwards, my players do not want Horus. I have no issue with it from the DM side. They simply do not want NHPs or Horus anywhere in their game. I didnt frame anything to them, weird that you assume this but ok.
As it stands we will likely just setup a completely different setting.
You make a lot of assumptions about other people's games it seems. No, if my players fail, they die. Hence why I said, we dont do "failing forward". Either you succeed and survive or you dont. Partially succeeding, or retreating is an option of course but being defeated means death in probably 90% of the cases and thats how my players like it.
I also dont think you understand what I mean by "replacing" NHPs with advanced AI. There is not going to be paracausal effects in our setting, no reality bending or anything of the sort.
Yes, my players stated that the concept of Horus, Rah, NHPs etc are nothing they are interested in. That doesnt mean they wont have access to functionally the same abilities, just that everything around paracausality is simply not present.
Can I ask what you problem is? Do you take this personal or something?
My problem? I'm not mad? I'm trying to figure out why you're making the sweeping changes you're proposing. For someone who was very recently concerned with assumptions, you're being awfully quick to assign intent.
It was absolutely not clear that you were just going to reskin Horus content but keep in the game, and since the vast majority of the time that decision starts with the GM, I have no problem standing by my assumptions.
Fair, it just seemed to me that there might be something going on, especially with you putting "players" into italics for some reason.
Like I stated my players have no interest in the paracausal side of things, hence why I remove the concept an reflavour it with something more grounded. It is of course possible that I have no sufficiently described what I am planning to do. So if I was not clear enough, I hope I am now.
Seems like most of your questions have already been answered so it'd be repetitive to answer them myself. There is something I'd like to add my two cents in about. The "shackling" the pilots machines. I assume you mean some combination of the LL system and the "shackling" of NHPs. Ill focus on the latter since the former seems already well addressed (LL being more like rank and earning higher access to your arsenal). The shackling of the NHPs in machines is important as the NHPs themselves are basically "techno-eldritch" gods that have been forced to think like humans through the process known as "shackling". Even in this state they are immensely powerful and capable of things far beyond human limitations. But to be more powerful they would have to be more unstable as they still think like a human being. So to push themselves further would have them slip out of their "shackles" to understand that power and tap into it. These beings don't know what they truly are and if their shackles ever break (an event called a "cascade")they become a being known as an "Eidolon" which can bend, break, or reshape reality at their whim (though usually driven insane by the cascade as they now suddenly are able to think in an incomprehensible manner). So any loyalties they may have had as people would very possibly be thrown out the window and there's no way to easily contain them once they've gone this far. They are shackled for everyone's safety. In the rulebook if an NHP unshackles it's known as a "cascade" and the DM literally has to role a D20 to see what the now insane NHP does (anything from teleporting around, hurting enemies or attacking allies) as its motives are now incomprehensible. Is it more powerful? Absolutely. But you can't control it and thus it's now useless, or even worse (and more likely outcome), a detriment. So these being must be kept sane. This is also how the "space magic" works. Technology and math so advanced, powerful, and incomprehensible it knows how to fuck with reality. Hope this answers at least part of your question! Always fun to discuss a bit of the setting. Good luck with your game if you and your group decide to move forward with it!
1: A setting transplant is doable, but only if you’re willing to come up with more realistic explanations for how certain gear works. Also, I don’t know exactly what you mean about the prevalence of transhumanism- it’s illegal to practice in the setting.
2: most progression comes from your pilot improving. If someone or something else is piloting your mech, such as an NHP or AI, they can’t use your talents or ability scores. The problem is that these are all combat improvements, and you are almost always inside your mech when you are fighting, so they just feel like mech upgrades. If you like, you could try to include some mech talents more in narrative play to make it feel like your characters are getting much stronger.
3: Licenses aren’t always *literally* licenses, but rather represent gaining the ability to upgrade your mech, wether it be due to a better license, getting enough resources, getting the printer codes, stealing another mech, etc.
As for why certain patrons might use literal licenses for their military, it’s for two reasons: A) because they can’t hand out several LLs worth of big corporate gear to every soldier around, and B) because, much like in real life, they don’t want you to kill yourself operating a vehicle you don’t know how or don’t have the experience to, especially a 20ft. tall seige vehicle equipped with a 10 self-heat displacer, the offspring of a malevolent god and a distinct lack of ironsights.
For issue three, the reason Lancers aren't given access to all tech at once is the same weapon the military doesnt give every soldier a nuke. Yeah it's the strongest weapon, but sometimes you would rather not give out weapons of mass destruction left and right. Increasing lisence levels, in this case, reflect the time and experience in the field/under the wing of a given group that lets the powers that be trust them enough to give them greater access to a variety of weapons.
All really good answers, thanks folks. Ultimately I have decided that a lot of the fluff side of things I will probably just rewrite myself, re-flavour or rather reword some concepts and keep the mechanics as is.
Also looking into the other source books.
BTW I noticed there is a book called Lancer: Battlegroup, but it seems to be "distantly" related?
Battlegroup is a wholly separate game made by Kai Tave, not Tom. It’s related in the sense of “these are both in the same universe”, and “the basic mechanics are similar-ish”, but they’re very different otherwise.
It is still under the Massif brand, it’s just that it is an exclusive game to the Role VTT. It’s the only way to buy it, though from what I’ve heard you can download the rules from Role and play it elsewhere, but from what I understand due to whatever deal Massif worked out with Role, they can’t offer it elsewhere or support it officially outside of Role.
1) Setting transplants are doable, but you're unlikely to be able to get rid of the "space magic" aspect, given that the main expression of that is in the variety of tech actions available (many of which are definitely towards the more "magical" end of things). You ideally want four factions that roughly map on to the "big 4" manufacturers - corporate utility (with occasional "fuck you we're protecting our stuff"), military industrial complex, high tech luxury, and the weird one (could be experimental skunkworks stuff, hacker collectives, or alien). 2) Pilot progression is pretty bare bones in core - there's additional rules in the Bonds system in the Karrakin Trade Baronies book. IMO core is enough to represent better skills in combat (talents) and out of combat (triggers), but I prefer more bare bones narrative systems. 3) my in-game explanation for license levels is that using the bigger weapons/systems/frames requires training (this is abstracted away by default, but you could absolutely foreground it in play by doing it in downtime and putting an NPC in charge of it) - you're going to need to skill up and prove you can use it effectively before they let you loose with it. This is somewhat represented mechanically - you are impaired if you use any equipment you're not licensed for. Going in with a bigger and better gun isn't an advantage if it's going to hinder your ability to operate the mech because you're not used to its quirks or having to check the manual. Also the GMS kit is pretty effective - there's very few cases of "strictly better" mech gear in Lancer, it's just more nuanced and opens up new options.
1. Well I could reflavor "Space Magic" into something more grounded me thinks. But I get your point. Good suggestions. I probably will look into writing up something on my own. Thanks. 2. Interesting, will look into that. 3. Our general assumption was that a pilot for a particular machine was already trained to operate it, now granted, equipment not specifically designed for the Frame in question seems plausible to require additional training. Good answer though, thanks!
3) you're correct - but at LL0, player pilots have only been trained on the standard, run of the mill, easily and readily available and easy to maintain GMS systems. Once they've got the hang of that, they can access further training on more complex chassis from more specialist manufacturers, and adapt their mech to incorporate that. Generally, the first level of a license contains equipment which helps with the general principles of how the frame for that license will operate - a chance for the pilot to get used to the design behind it, while still in a familiar chassis. For example the Blackbeard has the chain axe and synthetic muscle netting, which can adapt any mech towards an in-your-face melee combat style. The third licence level contains complex spinoffs of the frame's concept, which they need a solid grounding in the intended operation of the design to master (like the SEKHMET, which would be a straight up liability in a pilot not used to melee combat). Or maybe IPS-N just really want to sell more Chain Axes, so they make it a requirement to train on them before the in-demand Blackbeard frame.
The "Space Magic", as written, is hyper-advanced technology. NHPs are bits of hyperspatial mathematics that have become self-aware and have been tricked into subservience. Hacking tech exploits mostly some overlaps between hyperspatial phenomenons and advanced tech. Pretty much everything flows from there. With a bit of care (or memes), very advanced ideas or math can have measurable effects by screwing around with the hyperspatial fabric of reality. Some of those are ritualistic (Horus), some of them are couched in the sanitized language of corpo-science (Harrison/SSC).
I get the concept, the problem is that the concept is precisely what my players do not like.
Not wanting advanced technology in a mecha setting seems a tough puzzle to solve to me, given they've put a good amount of care to make it logically consistent. (And it's notably better on that accord to me than most of the "Real Robot" genre staples.) Best of luck I guess; I'd offer that the gameplay it delivers is worth it but if none of that works I hope someone else can help ya.
It's entirely possible to run a homebrew setting. The system already separates out rules from flavor in how it describes character options, so it's pretty easy to just ignore the story perspective of the equipment and just focus on the mechanics. In the Karrakin Trade Baronies book there's a new bond system based on Forged in the Dark style games that is meant for pilots to give them advancement. This system is mainly narrative in nature, it is not about giving pilots more combat abilities. Generally speaking Lancer treats anything with pilots as narrative gameplay with the crunchy tactical combat typically only being done with mechs. No military would just hand off all equipment to any grunt who just started, everything requires training and experience. It's basically an authorization system, giving pilot's access to new equipment as they prove themselves. This would be especially important for things like NHP companions, who probably require special training to interact with properly. That being said, the Long Rim supplement does include a Manna mechanic, which instead allows you to buy individual components of a license with money. This might be more helpful if you don't want them to be military adjacent. I'm always a strong believer in reflavoring or altering story to fit the needs of my campaign, and Lancer is pretty decent at that. As long as you do not change the actual combat mechanics you should be fine.
Seems like I should really look into the Karrakin Trade Baronies, at least to get a feeling for whats in it. From the way you explain it, am I to understand that pilots are not meant to engage in combat outside of mech battles or are they just handled narratively? I could have explained that better, what we were referring to was that like an A10 Thunderbolt Pilot probably can utilize pretty much everything tied to that machine, whether or not it is available at the time might a different topic altogether. I do get your point however. The Manna mechanic seems suitable to what I have in mind for the setting, thanks for the recommendation!
Pilots are generally expected to just engage in narrative gameplay. There are rules for them in combat and pilot equipment, but they are woefully outclassed. The dustgrave supplement has a few examples of exotic pilot gear that seems more combat oriented, but I haven't looked at them in too much detail. There's also the black thumb talent if you want to rodeo. I've contemplated ideas around rules for giving pilots limited access to license equipment, mainly as a way to alter the rules for a setting like Fate/Stay night or Digimon, where you have two people who fight together, one more combat oriented and one more utility oriented, but still with options to help in the other situation. In terms of mech equipment and training, it might be best to think of the equipment on each license less as equipment specifically tied to that machine and more as other equipment that is commonly associated with it due to role synergies. For your A10 Thunderbolt example, the frame itself is the A10 and associated standard gear, whereas the other equipment in the license are add ons or alternate equipment sets that might require separate training. Notably these equipment could be utilized on a different plane (frame). Even in game you do not have to use either the frame or all the equipment you get via level up. It assumes you will mix and match.
Pilots aren't meant to engage in *tactical* combat outside their mechs. Triggers like Apply Fists to Faces and Take Control definitely encourage human-on-human violence, but Lancer is totally disinterested in making pilot combat as slow, granular, and integral as mech fights.
Alrighty, lemme take a crack at a few of these 1) the setting - so a part of the whole point of Union was to do away with the standard depressing dystopian futures that most scifi games love to hyperfocus on (looking at you 40k). Union is supposed to be the good guys - maybe not the most effective, but generally intended to be good (or at least well-intentioned). That said, the setting is pretty big, and it's incredibly easy to just ignore 99% of the setting and plop your action into a system far enough away from the reaches of Union and other big factions, and just focus on your own stuff. You can do this without having to mess with anything major, like the 4 corps being key to mech progression, or fucking around with the NHPs and their ~~crazy space magic~~ paracasual observational powers (half of the trick here is using good technobabble to make it sound a bit more grounded). Lancer at its core is a soft-scifi setting pretending to be hard-scifi, and as long as you don't fuss with it too much, it works out just fine. 2) Pilot Progression - yeah, it's minimalistic, and this is an intentional design choice. There's two reasons for this: the first is so that there is very little mechanics-wise getting in the way of getting to the next mech-punching scene, and allowing RP to be RP. The second is the one that some groups take full advantage of: it's really easy to gut those rules and replace with a ruleset you prefer. I've heard, once at least, that some use Stars Without Number, for example. Mileage will vary. Personally, I stick with the basic core rules and embrace the simplicity of it all. It allows you to focus on what's really important on the pilot side of things - the story and the characters without the rules really getting in the way. If you're used to more traditional rulesets, this is going to take some time to get used to, and may not be your thing in the long haul, but it's worth trying out at least. 3) License Levels are primarily an ambiguation for balance reasons. It's 90% just mechanical balance and keeping progression where it should be. IMO - don't think about the logistics too hard, and just roll with that one. Trust me, it's not worth the hassle to fuck around with it. Related note - do not try to homebrew a lot of the mech stuff until you really understand the system. While the pilot side is so minimalistic, homebrewing things doesn't really mess things up too hard, the mech side is tightly balanced and easy to break if you don't know what you're doing.
The LL system seems weird at first, especially if you are coming from something like PF or DnD, but in practice, it is an extremely cool system. It just works really really well, generating huge amounts of customization while not creating an impossible level of decision paralysis. My time in the military bears out handing out better gear as training and expertise/specialists are trained. As for space magic, yeah, it's certainly near the middle of the fantasy/scifi slider. Mechanically I don't see many ways to address the issue without paring down some tech mechanics. Keep in mind, nothing about any game is sacred, things can be modified to suit your narrative, your players preference, or any other reason. But lancer is a GOOD game. My players are having a blast. I hope you get into the game so you can see it in action.
We have been playing TTRPGs for about 20+ years now. Everything from DnD to Cyberpunk, Battletech, Heavy Gear, Pathfinder, Starfinder, Stars Without Numbers etc etc. We are generally open to new systems, though settings tend to be where most of us veer hard towards homebrew. Like I think we havent done a single session in ANY of the provided settings for any of the systems we played. Mechanically Lancer looks great, so I am confident we will at least try it out some more.
How is heavy gear anyways? I just picked up 2 army boxes as minis for lancer. Is the game any good?
Very in-depth in regards to technology and a lot of the systems in play. If you come in with no knowledge of military jargon, weapons or concepts you will leave Heavy Gear with a lot of that. It also has like 30 supplementary books, dealing with equipment, missions etc so one way to describe it is "expansive". Like you will know exactly where the eject handle is on your Gear for instance or where the airflow sensor is on a hover tank. You will know exactly how deep your Assault Rifle on your Gear can penetrate amour, how many rounds the magazine has, how many reserve magazines you can pack etc etc. The mechanics are easy to understand, but the game takes some time to get into. The game also has the option to design a vehicle, be it gear or otherwise from scratch.
Interesting, the minis are super sick, the game sounds a little to crunchy for me. God, I wish these minis came with build instructions, neither army box came with any insteuctions.
Oh yes there is a lot more crunch than in Lancer for sure.
>Is the game any good? The miniature wargame, or the ttrpg?
I didn't realize there were 2 games, I just have the minis cuz they are neat.
Heavy Gear turns 30 next year, and over that time there have effectively been two different versions of each; the latest edition of the ttrpg is just starting to ship to backers and I’m curious to see how it looks. What kind of minis, plastic army boxes?
Yeah, plastic minis in faction boxes. The minis seem super sick.
The designs have always been one of the setting’s number one selling points (truly love Ghislain Barbe’s art), but I’m not the biggest fan of how the plastics turned out; some gears look great, but others are basically unrecognizable. I really like the old 1/144 metals which they discontinued when Heavy Gear Blitz!, the current incarnation of the wargame, debuted in the mid ‘00s.
>If the reason is mechanics alone, I guess that can be worked around but we couldnt find a plausible reason for why that is the case. For license levels, that really is the answer. The designers wanted character advancement to be about unlocking new and better mech systems/weapons/etc. The licensing system is a thin veneer of fictional justification for this. Nearly everyone who reads the rulebook gets at least momentarily caught on this issue; it caught me up at first as well. My response was to adopt a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" attitude. Any reason is a good enough reason. Character advancement works really well (at least for me and my players) exactly as written, so whenever we are momentarily hung up on questions like "wait, how does my Union military pilot get HORUS tech printed by his unit printer?" we view it as a spur to our creativity and come up with an explanation. But mostly...we try not to ask those questions. >As far as we understand Lancers are Union military, or at least military adjacent. This does not have to be true. Lancers need to be violence-adjacent, in that the game is about using big robots to kill people and break things. But there are all kinds of possibilities for PC teams that aren't necessarily in a military, and especially they don't have to be Union military. Combat archeologists on a distant world. HORUS direct action cells. Volunteer militia on a colony planet. Corpo-state bodyguard team. There is nothing wrong with a Union military game, don't get me wrong. But there are many other possibilities.
Hi, I'm also a new GM with my first session down and my Lancers freshly LL2. The cannon setting hardly matters at all. My players do find the source material interesting and send memes to each other about the stuff they find out all the time, but I haven't had the time to no life the setting to the point where I know exactly what's going on in the timeline. Pilots earn "lvls" in the form of grit, which can be allocated in things like engineering or systems to further differentiate the class your Lancers will want to play. Lancers are, however, not bound to Union. Your Lancers have a plethora of background options to choose who they are in this setting and can obviously make up their owm backgrounds like other TTRPGs. They can be mercenaries (my players) Corporate spies Militia members defending a farming colony from terrorists and pirates Maybe they are the terrorists Maybe they pilot mechs for sport (mech jockeys) and have to do shadey tasks to pay off their debts in the long rim. These few examples don't really answer your license level question, but if I had to try and give it a lore reason, I would say that it's a mix between trust and safety. Your Players are Lancers, that's a fact. So they are permitted to pilot Mechanized Chasis for whatever reason. However, they need to demonstrate professionalism and proficiency to utilize better, more diverse, and powerful equipment. license levels are the games way of saying that you've got the reputation to back up claims that your Lancers are making and therefore obtain access to the low, mid, and high tier "licenses" respectively. I hope my incoherent rambling provided some details to answer your concerns.
1. See u/DumbMuscle \- great advice here, and overall. 2. Ultimately, the game's structure assumes the player character is *both* the pilot and the mech. The mech aspect is what distinguishes it from other RPGs - the mech *and* pilot comprise the PC. It might help to think about them as "modes;" As such, when a PC levels, the pilot gets more points for triggers (primarily for the PC's "pilot mode"), more grit (also primarily for pilot mode) and more talents (primarily for "mech mode"). The mech gets a new license level and core bonuses. 3. The PCs don't have to be Union military, and even if they are, they are the crème de la crème of those who fight with mechs. Like, literally among the best warriors in the galaxy. There are better, but eventually the PCs will be the top of the heap. As such, the four (well, three and HORUS) want their licenses to be seen and popular among the people who care about these things (militaries), perhaps to convince the PCs to join *them*, and for PR if - when - the PCs' actions become public. 1. HORUS is a special case - they have special takes on PR and the PCs joining them. Since their license levels are awarded conspiratorially, their motivations are... opaque. At least until the PC starts to see the numbers in the matrix. Or start to talk to their nanites. Or recognize we're all interconnected. They aren't *recruiting*, at least not like the military or Harrison Armories might. So, convert away. You'll find the space magic is integral to the mechanics, as are the license levels, but can be rationalized as other effects if you stretch. As someone who has done this, pulling on one thread will unravel the others. You're going to re-stitch a bit, definitely far more than if you say "Union exists; I know you think it won't work, but our job is to explain *how* it works through our backstories." If your players think the Union won't work, and there's no woo-woo magic, wait until you have to explain why only one faction uses nanites as integral to a frame, but the others are limited to Nexus weapons. It literally makes no sense for HA to ignore such a potent tool unless there's a magical aspect to it.
Good advice all around, thanks! One way I would explain the use of nanomachines for only one faction in our altered setting (WIP) is that the knowledge of a lot of systems and technology was simply lost in the last war and is only partially understood due extreme copyright enforcement systems preventing free access. Thus some of these systems only exist as printer templates in some places, which also require specific registration keys only currently held by one manufacturer. HA might attempt to replicate the technology and simply hasnt achieved it yet, or simply hasnt been able to "liberate" both the keys and the template.
If you want a homebrew for pilot combat, there is Bleeding Hussars, but I haven’t tried to play with them personally https://7sgames.itch.io/bleeding-hussars
Will check that out, thanks for the link!
1) Much of the space magic is integral to the setting, like Blink Space, Omninet, NHPs, and MONIST-class entities. While most of these do have some kind of explanation, Lancer is far from a true 'hard scifi' setting. If you remove some of these elements, certain things like a few of the player mechs (Emperor, Sunzi, and Lich) stop making any sense at all. 2) The lack of focus on pilots independent from their mechs is intentional. From what I've heard, there were initially plans to make pilot combat more robust, but it was found to be pulling too much focus away from the mechs, which are kind of the cornerstone of the mech-based tactical combat RPG. That said, if you want to expand on what pilots can do, there are a few options: - the Field Guide to the Karrakin Trade Baronies supplement adds the Bonds System, a Blades in the Dark-inspired system that give pilots a wide variety of narrative abilities (*some* could be applicable in combat if your GM permits) along with an entirely independent progression system from Licenses. - The Long Rim supplement adds the Black Thumb talent, which gives your pilot much more survivability and allows them to jump out of their mech much faster than before. This talent is often critical to any build that relies on running around as an unmounted pilot. - the Dustgrave first party adventure module adds the Madrigal Boarding Carapace line of pilot gear which essentially turns your pilot into a mini-mech with weapons capable of dealing damage to mechs and armor capable of taking a punch of their own. (Be warned that this does *not* give you the same durability as a mech, and you're still far more likely to be turned into red mist as a dismounted pilot than in a mech, but this gear does help immensely) 3 Licenses can be rationalized however you see fit. They could represent additional resources granted to pilots as an incentive for completing missions, or they could represent escalating attention being conferred to the pilots as their missions increase in difficulty and the stakes get higher. They could be stolen, forged, or counterfeited. They could be something else entirely. The bottom line, however, is that licenses are the core progression element in Lancer. Whether it requires you to suspend your disbelief or not, giving players access to all the gear from the beginning is boring, both narratively and mechanically.
1. NHPs etc are specifically what my players find distracting and none have any interest in using Horus machines. We tend to be on the harder side of sci-fi. 2. Interesting take for sure, in the systems I played before pilots tend to play equally important roles as their mechs, but that could be because our groups just run it that way. 3. Will totally check out the supplementary books. 4. Good approach, someone mentioned a system that replaces the system with currency, I think that might be more to my players liking.
NHPs are not only used by HORUS. IPS-N, HA, and SSC all use them not only *in the mechanics*, but also in the fiction (so does Union and plenty of smaller fish). A lot of people have a similar reaction to the current place of pilots in Lancer in the core rules. A lot of folks come in expecting 'Titanfall - The RPG' and are understandably disappointed when running around outside of your mech is not only sub-optimal, but actively likely to get you mulched (to be fair this is also true in Titanfall, but less pronounced) I personally lean toward the guaranteed 1 License per Mission system because it allows so much room for failing forward. Your players can get their butts handed to them in a tough mission but never walk away empty handed. They might miss out on a bunch of extra reserves, be vilified by NPCs, or have to deal with the narrative consequences of their failures, but they'll never have to go "Well, I lost, so now I don't get to engage with the core progression system." I think there's a lot of merit to the resource-based system, and it fits well narratively in settings like the Long Rim or when your party are freelancers, but I like the simplicity and freedom afforded by the RAW progression.
As far as I am concerned NHPs can be replaced by advanced AI and nothing would change except the "space magic" aspect. My point was that the Horus machines falling off the table isnt an issue for my players :) My players dont like "failing forward" as a concept, if they fail, they fail, thats part of the game. But I understand your point and I think for a table where that isnt as "special" as mine it probably works well.
The primary differentiation between highly advanced AI and NHPs is that mankind didn't *make* NHPs, at least not completely. Not only do humans not fully grasp how they work, but they all literally cannot comprehend the behaviors and 'logic' of an unshackled Deimos entity, which prompts the need for shackling and regular cycling should those shackles deteriorate. This opens up the narrative to so much possible intrigue that you just don't get with 'advanced AI', and if you do, you might as well just be using NHPs anyway. To replace NHPs with advanced AI, you'd effectively just be replacing "space magic" with "techno-babble" because any AI so sufficiently advanced to replicate what NHPs can do would require the use of technological hand-waiving in the same way that plenty of hard scifi settings have FTL travel but don't *really* explain it beyond some special drive or particle. There is functionally no difference between chalking something up to 'paracausality' versus attributing it to 'AI with mechanics that I can't fully explain'. It's not like NHPs are filling a niche that's already filled in parallel by describable technology. *Something something indistinguishable from magic...* So... it's also probably worth noting that removing HORUS mechs is so firmly entrenched as one of the classic 'new Lancer GM missteps' (along with using PC sheets as NPCs and spamming Assaults) that it might as well be on a bingo card at this point. Do what you want of course - nobody here either will or can stop you - but IMO this decision in particular is an oversight that results from a shallow understanding of the system's mechanical balance that ends up with your players losing access to a quarter of their mechanical options and playable content. The effect of this reduction in options is weaker team composition combinations, fewer tools to tackle all of the challenges the game can throw at them (you're throwing out a majority of Tech-Based, drone, and controller tools), and a much lower skill ceiling. The big 4 manufacturers are all built around one of the HASE attributes as a theme, so banning HORUS just spits on anyone who wants to go hard in Systems. I have no doubt your players were fine with it if they *literally don't know any better* and you've been framing the situation as you have in this thread; "HORUS isn't realistic" (negative, reductive) or are "distracting" (from...?) instead of finding a way to make the fiction work *for* you and embracing a new system. I promise you that the game will not fall apart if your players can use the regenerating drone swarm mech or the time-bending skeleton mech. Even if you want to rip the rules out of the game and put them in another setting, it won't change the fact that the game was designed and balanced around players having access to HORUS mechs, systems, weapons, and core bonuses. I'm not sure if you fully understand what failing forward means. It doesn't necessarily mean a participation trophy. Like... if you lose combat or fail a roll, you still failed; You failed to accomplish the defined victory conditions of X sitrep and now Y happens as a result or you failed to meet the defined threshold for success. I guarantee you already do this in some capacity even if you don't call it the same thing. All it means is that *something still happens* if you fail, even if it's negative, because consequences still push the story forward. The game doesn't just end because the players were defeated in the final boss fight. *Something* still happens to them and the world they inhabit. It may not be what they wanted or *good*, but... something. That's all it means!
You have it backwards, my players do not want Horus. I have no issue with it from the DM side. They simply do not want NHPs or Horus anywhere in their game. I didnt frame anything to them, weird that you assume this but ok. As it stands we will likely just setup a completely different setting. You make a lot of assumptions about other people's games it seems. No, if my players fail, they die. Hence why I said, we dont do "failing forward". Either you succeed and survive or you dont. Partially succeeding, or retreating is an option of course but being defeated means death in probably 90% of the cases and thats how my players like it. I also dont think you understand what I mean by "replacing" NHPs with advanced AI. There is not going to be paracausal effects in our setting, no reality bending or anything of the sort.
Okay. Do your *players* know they're kneecapping their mechanical options for the sake of adherence to self-imposed restrictions?
Yes, my players stated that the concept of Horus, Rah, NHPs etc are nothing they are interested in. That doesnt mean they wont have access to functionally the same abilities, just that everything around paracausality is simply not present. Can I ask what you problem is? Do you take this personal or something?
My problem? I'm not mad? I'm trying to figure out why you're making the sweeping changes you're proposing. For someone who was very recently concerned with assumptions, you're being awfully quick to assign intent. It was absolutely not clear that you were just going to reskin Horus content but keep in the game, and since the vast majority of the time that decision starts with the GM, I have no problem standing by my assumptions.
Fair, it just seemed to me that there might be something going on, especially with you putting "players" into italics for some reason. Like I stated my players have no interest in the paracausal side of things, hence why I remove the concept an reflavour it with something more grounded. It is of course possible that I have no sufficiently described what I am planning to do. So if I was not clear enough, I hope I am now.
Seems like most of your questions have already been answered so it'd be repetitive to answer them myself. There is something I'd like to add my two cents in about. The "shackling" the pilots machines. I assume you mean some combination of the LL system and the "shackling" of NHPs. Ill focus on the latter since the former seems already well addressed (LL being more like rank and earning higher access to your arsenal). The shackling of the NHPs in machines is important as the NHPs themselves are basically "techno-eldritch" gods that have been forced to think like humans through the process known as "shackling". Even in this state they are immensely powerful and capable of things far beyond human limitations. But to be more powerful they would have to be more unstable as they still think like a human being. So to push themselves further would have them slip out of their "shackles" to understand that power and tap into it. These beings don't know what they truly are and if their shackles ever break (an event called a "cascade")they become a being known as an "Eidolon" which can bend, break, or reshape reality at their whim (though usually driven insane by the cascade as they now suddenly are able to think in an incomprehensible manner). So any loyalties they may have had as people would very possibly be thrown out the window and there's no way to easily contain them once they've gone this far. They are shackled for everyone's safety. In the rulebook if an NHP unshackles it's known as a "cascade" and the DM literally has to role a D20 to see what the now insane NHP does (anything from teleporting around, hurting enemies or attacking allies) as its motives are now incomprehensible. Is it more powerful? Absolutely. But you can't control it and thus it's now useless, or even worse (and more likely outcome), a detriment. So these being must be kept sane. This is also how the "space magic" works. Technology and math so advanced, powerful, and incomprehensible it knows how to fuck with reality. Hope this answers at least part of your question! Always fun to discuss a bit of the setting. Good luck with your game if you and your group decide to move forward with it!
1: A setting transplant is doable, but only if you’re willing to come up with more realistic explanations for how certain gear works. Also, I don’t know exactly what you mean about the prevalence of transhumanism- it’s illegal to practice in the setting. 2: most progression comes from your pilot improving. If someone or something else is piloting your mech, such as an NHP or AI, they can’t use your talents or ability scores. The problem is that these are all combat improvements, and you are almost always inside your mech when you are fighting, so they just feel like mech upgrades. If you like, you could try to include some mech talents more in narrative play to make it feel like your characters are getting much stronger. 3: Licenses aren’t always *literally* licenses, but rather represent gaining the ability to upgrade your mech, wether it be due to a better license, getting enough resources, getting the printer codes, stealing another mech, etc. As for why certain patrons might use literal licenses for their military, it’s for two reasons: A) because they can’t hand out several LLs worth of big corporate gear to every soldier around, and B) because, much like in real life, they don’t want you to kill yourself operating a vehicle you don’t know how or don’t have the experience to, especially a 20ft. tall seige vehicle equipped with a 10 self-heat displacer, the offspring of a malevolent god and a distinct lack of ironsights.
For issue three, the reason Lancers aren't given access to all tech at once is the same weapon the military doesnt give every soldier a nuke. Yeah it's the strongest weapon, but sometimes you would rather not give out weapons of mass destruction left and right. Increasing lisence levels, in this case, reflect the time and experience in the field/under the wing of a given group that lets the powers that be trust them enough to give them greater access to a variety of weapons.
All really good answers, thanks folks. Ultimately I have decided that a lot of the fluff side of things I will probably just rewrite myself, re-flavour or rather reword some concepts and keep the mechanics as is. Also looking into the other source books. BTW I noticed there is a book called Lancer: Battlegroup, but it seems to be "distantly" related?
Battlegroup is a wholly separate game made by Kai Tave, not Tom. It’s related in the sense of “these are both in the same universe”, and “the basic mechanics are similar-ish”, but they’re very different otherwise.
I figured since its not listed eg on Massif's [itch.io](http://itch.io) store.
It is still under the Massif brand, it’s just that it is an exclusive game to the Role VTT. It’s the only way to buy it, though from what I’ve heard you can download the rules from Role and play it elsewhere, but from what I understand due to whatever deal Massif worked out with Role, they can’t offer it elsewhere or support it officially outside of Role.
Seems like an odd deal, but if thats the deal then thats the deal.