On LANCER Release 1.8

So I have a few complaints and considerations to levy about this edition. It's not all bad, nor is it extensive/over-arching of the entire game, but instead a few systems that I've been mulling over. Namely, Character Creation, Rarity, Mounts, Core "Ults", Core Bonuses, and Modularity.

To give some background, me and my group are updating from a far earlier version of the game (1.4 I believe), and we just recently completed our first game in 1.8. I understand that the game has gone through some *very* extensive changes since then. That's not what I take issue with. What I'm questioning is the goal of system (arguably, Modular Mech creation and combat, with narrative pilot play, that is fun and easy to get into) and whether or not that system accomplishes its goal. I shouldn't have to say that I also recognize the game isn't made to cater solely to my group and I, but I'll still do so in advance.

Firstly, some positive. I really like the additional flavor text that has been added to the game, as well as the balancing of the talents list. All of them really feel viable now, as opposed to so many only seeming good for certain builds. I also appreciate the additional gear and upgrades, as well as their distribution two different games manufacturers. It helps the manufacturers feel more distinct as well as incentivize players to dip their toes into licenses outside of their specific taste in order to access certain items.

Now for some bad.

```Character Creation```

*Or User Friendly User Interface for Character Creation*

After at least 4 updates (technically now with releases like 1.7.5) I would have expected Character Creation to have been streamlined/better presented. So much information about narrative play, stats, your mech, non-narrative play, general mechanics, and lore are front-ended that it's a pain to sort through. Worse yet, even if it's not actually conflicting information, the way a lot of it is presented makes some of it *feel* conflicting. I've played a game now and I still couldn't tell you what Mech Skills are exactly, where they come from, and how they're determined. It's only through the grace of my GM that I wasn't entirely useless. It doesn't help that the last official character sheet we have is (technically) two updates old. While the community stand in is appreciated it's...well to be entirely honest it's hard to sort through. Creating my character honestly left me feeling like I rather have updates come out slower and have sheets that make sense for them*included* than having to wait on them. Speaking of which, they're just a*lot* to keep track of. I know the game says you don't, but for something like Pilot Skills, if I'm going to ever use them *I want them written down*, and there should be space for it.

So what's (my personal opinion's) fix for this? Well first of all the Character Creation, Game Introduction, and GM section should be better organized. To be honest the GM section should probably be in an entirely different document, but I'll reserve that judgement since, as a player only, I've never read it. I think LANCER should take some inspiration from D&D with it's Player Handbook. A preface, a short introduction (no more than five pages) that give players an *idea* (not a full breakdown) of what they'll be doing in the game.
Then you jump straight into Character Creation. Give players a short explanation of what they're choosing from (kinda how dexterity gets a short explanation, do that for each Pilot Skill and other stats), an example of what it looks like all together (so *only* level 0 Taro Oda), and then the resources (*for levels 0) in the order of relevancy (how much gear and upgrades you can take, pilot gear list for GMS, a breakhow of what everything on a mech means, how to set up your mech, The Everest, the GMS Systems). Finally end of with the leveling chart that shows players what they will gain at each level. In short, let players set up their characters before you throw the rule book at them. It bogs the entire early cycle down otherwise. After that you can break up the book by the four manufacturers, write in*clear language* what gear you get with them regardless of where in their catalog you specifically place your licence points, and then each FRAME in the catalog and what comes with them at each level. This would allow for players making characters at higher levels to still sort through everything with relative ease. Of course that actually gets to the content of the Character Creation, starting with Rarity.

```Rarity```

*Or Limiting What I Can Carry in a* ***Meaningful*** *Way*

This one is meaningful to me, so I am comfortable admitting that I'm coming to this with some bias. I don't know how others play LANCER but the pilot experience is very integral to how my group I experience the game. For us, when you're outside of your mech, the game doesn't just become role playing. Instead, it's hard mode, and it'll require strong planning, good ability, and high luck to get though. the game goes from being a power fantasy to a survival fantasy, and I love it. I liken the change to that of switching between Dungeons and Dragons to Call of Cthulhu.
What does all this have to do with Rarity? Well I don't think it limits players in an interesting way, in fact I think it is a contradicting be incentive to dip into other licenses. This is doubly true for big ticket items or items that *only* really gives *narrative* benefits. This is compounded by the fact that all GMS gear has a rarity of zero, which means you'll have a ton of the free upgrades and gear from them, especially since some items take up a*quarter* of the*total* Rarity you'll *ever* have. While I'm sure this system was devised in order to maintain a level of balance for Pilots, I'm sure that it can be done in a better way that doesn't punish me a point for taking the Slyph just because I want a weird organic undersuit.

So, what would I propose instead? Well firstly I don't think Rarity should be treated as a gauge to be filled up by the items you took, but instead a a check reflective of your experience. What do I mean be that? well, simple. As of now rarity works by checking your pilot level, which is the same as the total amount of Rarity slots you have, to determine whether or not you can take something. For instance, if you were pilot level four, you could only take one or more items that had a cumulative Rarity of four. This means that even items with *one* Rarity weigh heavily on your loadout. What I propose instead is a change of the system where your pilot level is instead reflective of the level of Rarity known, and thus you can only take items of the same level or lower. As example, say you were level four. You would be able to take *any* item of four Rarity or less.
Obviously this would require a re-organization of the Rarity of items but doing would (Secondly) create more dynamic loadouts as well allow more interesting effects in Rarity. For instance, an item could have a Rarity of 1, but *increase* the Rarity of *every other item* you have equipped by 1. Narratively this would mean that that item, while not particularly rare, requires so much to procure that it makes other things harder to get. You could also do the opposite, having an item that is expensive and doesn't do much, but makes other items cheaper. you can even have it so that only specific kinds of items got more expensive or cheaper. Finally (thirdly) you could make some items for each manufacturer zero Rarity. I'm sure there are some things that every pilot with a license from a specific manufacturer has (complimentary key chains?). You'd still only be able to take two weapons and two pieces of gear. It's my belief that all these changes would help diversify Pilots and their loadouts, and strengthen the incentive to dip into other manufacturers licenses. It also help upgrades feel like just that, and gear more interesting to choose from, as opposed to frustrating. Better yet, as more Pilot Gear is added either from updates or community input, this system would allow for a more flexibility and dynamic player input. But Rarity isn't the only Loadout mechanic I've been thinking of...

```Mounts and Ults```

*Or Honestly Some Small Complaints*

I'll be using the SSC Mourning Cloak as my example for this section, but I want to make clear that it's not *the only* FRAME I feel this way about, but it *is* the one FRAME I feel the most comfortable making these smaller complaints about, especially because I think it's the worst case of it.
While I generally really like the Mount system, as it very clearly gives you idea what kind of build each FRAME is good for, sometimes it feels less *suggestive* and more *directive*. Yes, I *could* stick a rifle on my Mourning Cloak, but based on the Core ability of that particular mech, as well as the *very* limited Mounts of the SSC-MC, it feels very obvious that the game wants me to use a sword. That means that if I encounter any other SSC-MC, player or enemy, *they* are probably going to be using a sword. It feels like a non-choice, which makes that particular mech feel less modular.

The SSC-MC also has, what I feel to be, one of the weakest, if not **the** weakest, Ult in the game. I may be over simplifying it somewhat but as my group understood it the Ult is literally you choosing *one turn*, to teleport *once* (albeit anywhere), unless there's an obstruction, in which case you *don't* teleport *and* you take damage ***and*** your core energy is used. That's awful.As for the Ult, I rather have a worse ability that I can use more consistently than one that's only okay that I can use *once*. The issue with it in particular is that it's a one *turn* ability with both a cost *and* risk that honestly amounts to a movement ability. A *powerful* movement ability, yes, but still movement. That makes it a highly limited, purely utility, ability. Other utility abilities at least last until the encounter has ended or they are actively disrupted or deactivated, while other limited use abilities (one turn actives) do more than utility (damage, defense, area denial, or some combination thereof). Take the SSC-MC's big sister, the Black Witch. The SSC-BW's Ult creates a magnetic field that nullifies kinetic projectiles that move through it as well as drag in units who pass through it, before collapsing and redistributing all the kinetic damage to anyone caught in it's AoE. That's utility, defense, damage, and area denial wrapped in one, plus allies can bounce off of it's usage. I can totally imagine someone with a gravity gun firing into the center of it the drag nearby enemies into its effect, since the gravity gun's projectile wouldn't be cancelled as it's energy. It's like a time-bomb version of Zarya's Gravaton Orb

So what's the fix for this? Well I think the some Mechs would do well from either added Mounts or changed ones. As of now the SSC-MC has a Main Mount and a Aux/Aux. Why not switch out the ladder for a Flex Mount, to give more of a choice. Sure, you could just decided to use *two* swords (double axe to the back), or you might take a main rifle and a sword, or maybe two knives and a rifle. The point is that you have options.
For Ults, I again think a few FRAMES could use some changes. I don't want to be afraid to use it, I want to be trying to figure out the best time to use it, or when the risk is outweighed by the potential benefits. Like I said before, I rather have a worse ability that I can use a couple of times than one that only okay and is one and done. Maybe for the SSC-MC it's Ult could be changed to being teleports any space that is in line of sight but also inaccurate (so you might be in a couple of squares off). Then the teleport would recharge on successful melee strikes (like a weird, teleporting Genji). In fact, I think more Ults could benefit from some kind of way to recharge, assuming some prerequisite was met. Not all, bit definitely ones that lean mostly on the utility of the ability.
Some of you may be thinking "Core Bonuses could fix both of those issues", but not only is it kind of insulting to use one of your 4 total career bonuses on getting your chosen FRAME up to snuff, I have my own nitpicks for that system too.

```Core Bonuses```

*Or Shooting the Incentive to Branch Out in the Foot*

This one is short but I think it's very potent to everything I've been saying so far. I've been praising this update of LANCER for being more team-oriented, having talents that feel more applicable, and having an order of mechanics that incentivize branching out and spending your license on manufacturers you normally wouldn't. Anything contrary to this has been relatively small and I could look past it if it was the only thing contradiction. This isn't one of those things.
As of the time of writing the Core Bonuses system requires you two have three licenses in *one* manufacturer for every Core Bonus associated with that manufacturer that you want, with the exception of GMS. That may not sound that bad on paper, but in practice it means that if you spend even one license on another manufacturer, even just to experiment and possibly branch out, you lose the ability to get another core bonus from the manufacturer you where previously putting points into, and worse yet, unless you put two more license points into the manufacturer you branched out into you *have* to take a GMS Core Bonus (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but man doesn't feel stifling). Remember, you only get a Core bonus every three Pilot license levels, and there are only twelve Pilot license levels in the game, so the system more or less, actively punishes you for testing the waters with other manufacturers.

My "solution" to this is simple, incentivizes licence exploration, has a narrative explanation, raises is the base power level of everyone, and gives pilots two extra core bonuses at the end of their career/ icense progression.
Instead of gaining a Core Bonus every three license level, you should instead gain one at 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th, and 12 Pilot license level. Furthermore the requirements for an additional core bonus from each manufacturer should start at 3 license points, then drop to two, then one, and then go back up to 3. (That is to say that if you already have a Core Bonus from Horus and you want another, it should only cost you two licenses as opposed to another three, and then after that, only one, before requiring three again).
Narratively, the reason for this could be that the engineers who tweak your core to operate at this new level are familiar with you and willing to do more for less proof of skill and manufacturer loyalty. Of course, at a certain level they'll want some proof again, but once you're beyond that threshold they'll ease up again.
Some may say that this forces you down a certain progression path of putting in three licenses, then two, and then one, but remember, GMS Core Bonuses are still a free option, and in this system it's more of a choice. Being able to forgo your Core Bonus at level but take it later on when you have the necessary requirements would also add more flexibility and choice. Finally it means that if you want to, say, grab one license level in a different manufacturer to have access to their Pilot Gear, but you still want your original manufacturer's Core Bonuses, you aren't punished for that experimentation. Thus, it maintains the level of incentive to mix and match licenses.

All of this goes towards my final point:

```Modularity```

*Or Maintaining the Feeling of Building* ***You're*** *Perfect Hodgepodge of Systems and Gear*

As I said before, me and my play group are coming from a far earlier edition of the game, and while it was very exciting to see so many changes that forced us to think differently and work together better, it was equally frustrating to feel like so much had suddenly been barred behind so many entry fees. Not only was it a joy to willingly read through the manual for hours, trying to figure out how to get just one more system or weapon in or on our FRAME, but it was immersive too. I actually felt like a highly skilled Pilot attempting The squeeze everything I could out of my machine.

In this current edition, that joy and immersion has been diminished somewhat, and it's my belief that the systems and mechanics outlined above are the primary cause of it, if not in the very least issues the game will have to work through before final release.

I really love LANCER (I wouldn't have spent so much time writing this if I didn't), so I wanted to be a great tabletop RPG in spite of scrutiny leveraged against it, not in absence of it.

Thank you for reading.