While i dont disagree, for me naming your mech is for the pilot's characterization. People name things that are important to them, cars, accessories, tools, etc. we name them for ourselves more than others, people name their cars just give it character, soldiers and hunters often name weapons they use for long duration's of time, I'd imagine a pilot in lancer would do the same, especially because most pilots do make unique customizations and modifications to their mechs. Mechanically I fully agree the game disincentivizes the need to name you mech, but role-play wise in the post scarcity setting setting we play in I'd argue that even if a mech gets destroyed and is reprinted, we'd still probably name the mech, just like how in a post scarcity world we'd probably still name our stuff. EDIT: to clarify I do think you made some good points, and I think I'll personally start using the name to tally deaths on my chasis, but personally I think giving your mechs names is improtant to characterization and role play for pilots.
I always saw it as a name for the design, not the physical mech. The mech is an easily replaceable hunk of metal, but it's also a highly modular custom machine. The way a pilot combines a frame and modules to synergize with each other and the pilot's own skills and tactics is a form of self-expression. Just because you can print endless copies of an artwork doesn't mean you can't title it.
@@ValkisCalmor Exactly. The machine may die but the idea lives on. The mech's codename can describe the whole pattern group a pilot uses, even if the individual instance is destroyed.
my character is from an oral traditionalist society that makes NHPs to help with memorizing stories and history then chains them by pure accident because we see them as human but without bodies and better memories. so my personal NHP (in technophile) has the name of an ancient african hero: Mwindo. the mech is just his body and bodies are transient things so why bother naming it? but I agree in other cultures it makes sense to give names to things you grow attached too.
Good video and interesting point of discussion. I do not agree with your thesis, and this is why: “This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine”. The mechs are modular, replaceable tools, this is true, but also in the rules if you pilot someone else’s mech you do so with great difficulty (you are impaired and slowed). So yes, everyone gets an Everest, but it’s YOUR Everest! My second point would be that in CompCon you can of course come up with different builds for your mech(s) why not give them different names to distinguish them? I have a pilot who is the long-rifle sniper, and he has two main builds: a Deaths-head and a Sherman, Respectively they called “Deinopidae” and “Mr. McFeely”. They reflect what the build does, and I can easily pick which one will work best for each mission. I wholeheartedly agree that a player typically needs only a call sign or a named mech. In most other games you only need to remember your friends characters names. In Lancer you need to remember their characters names, their call signs AND their mechs names. It’s a bit much. I don’t want to detract from your video, and I hope that a conversation can arise from it. One way or another, it doesn’t matter too much narratively, and whatever everyone at the table likes (whatever they find fun) that should be what matters in the end.
My one and only counterpoint are characters who name their mechs like u name every tool in your toolbox “yeah I broke big bertha (whatever giant wrench) but this one is the new big bertha” and just being totally fine replacing them but that’s for once ur more comfortable replacing them But I do like the general advice
Armored Core completely subverts this though, and is also the pinnacle of the genre. the pilots have a broad term, be it ravens, lynxes, hounds, etc. the pilots all have callsigns as well, some examples being: Invincible Rummy, Patch The Good Luck, Hustler One, and V.IV Rusty. the Armored Cores also all have names, corresponding to the mentioned pilot callsigns are: Mad Stomp, No Count, Nine Ball, and Steel Haze.
I think it greatly depends on the pilot. It makes sense for some, and not for others. For example, in one of my campaigns we have a Hosue of Glass noble who made their family mad at them, and got their privileges revoked. Later they earned their frame back from their family and it had a storied history. Yea, it's probably been reprinted who knows how many times, but that frame's serial number is tied to that frame name. We have another character from a planet who more or less worships an NHP and has a shard of it in the from of the Technophile trait. Their NHP and their frame share a name- functionally a character as the frame serves as the NHP's body. We have another character who spent years mostly alone on these remote colonies, living in his frame. It has a name, because until the squad, it was more or less his only friend/family, the only thing he relied on. Another character in a different game is a clone of a Albatross hero. She named the frame- now her "daughter" is trying to live up to the legend, or forge her own. As for the frame getting destroyed and being gone: It's like the old fighter pilots or bomber crews having a keepsake from the original they put in the new one, even if it gets wrecked. Maybe those characters don't need callsigns becasue they have those things? But then, something would alos be missing. It is totally a style of game, and a style of player though. I suppose my thought would just be that if the frame has a name, the reason it has a name is just as important as the name itself.
I agree, I think that's the disconnect that Lancer has with other mech media, the specialness of a mech has to be narratively earned, it's not a given.
I'm on board, don't name your mech, unless you're Casval Deikun using the pseudonym Char Aznable, under cover as Quattro Bajeena and your mech is coated in gold.
Counterpoint (/affectionate): COMP/CON won't let me make a mech without naming it! so strictly speaking I kind of have to. I know I 'could' just name it after my pilot's callsign... but then I can't make the name a pun, or a cultural reference. The 'disposability' of chassis then becomes a benefit, as i get to keep making new puns or referencing new media, rather than running one joke into the ground! (Because if I'm running up a meme nelson build designed to travel at impossible speeds there's no way i'm not naming it 'Chì Tù' or somthing similar.) Seriously though, on one level I agree that the instrumentality of mecha in the setting is a vital componant of it, but one of the main themes of Lancer is the essential character of humanity being persistant over time, and we human tend to anthropomophise our tools, especially cars and other cool means of transport. Every military since the development of the tank has had crews name their vehicle, and even if the Ship of Thesius argument applies, the name may stick and be retained. I think it's a largely unavoidable aspect of human nature to want to put some 'personhood' to the thing that is somthing between personal armour, battle tank and fighter jet, to which you're entrusting your life. And of course, if you have a player who simply doesn't gel at all with the idea of mecha being disposable (I have a friend who simply cannot get over the amount of waste embodied in the energetics cost of continually reprinting rather than repairing) the 3rd party Intercorp suppliment has a Talent for just such folks, called 'ANTIQUARIAN' which emphasises treating your mech as a living relic, constantly repairing it rather than simply using it as a disposable tool, "despite the condescending smiles of their fellow Lancers."
Interesting take. I really see naming a mech as something that makes that particular mech more distinctive from other makes of that model but ultimately, it is the pilot that gives the mech that personality.
Interestingly, almost all NPC lore blurbs include the names of both a notable pilot of that frame class and their mech. However, while the pilot names are all just their ordinary names, on the level of John Brown, the mechs have over-the-top, memorable names. So it seems like Lancers are known by their callsigns, where as regular pilots are known by their mechs?
If I may add to this a tad; in military, there are call signs like Echo 1 or Urzu 3. Then there are code names among the pilots of that squadron and if that pilot gets really good and the enemy takes note; they will call that machine something else like the RX-78-2 Gundam was called the white devil among Zeon pilots as the gundam was just the gundam but in a realistic military setting; that gundam would be a call sign that will change to keep the enemy off guard should comms be intercepted. A slight counter to said example I had seen in comments are tankers. I would also say bomber crews and fighter pilots of world war 2.Example. There is a fictional but probable M1A1 Abrams named "Kill Master". "Kill Master" is what the crew may name their tank but it will have a call sign, Sierra 2. If Sierra 2 is famous enough; the enemy may call it the desert demon or the sniper of the sands or whatever.
When people name their mechs in Lancer they aren't naming that particular physical manifestation, they're naming that custom combination of licensed gear and weapons and frame. Therefore when it's destroyed that named combination doesn't disappear, it can be reprinted and will be the same combination, and therefore have the same name. In the same way that if your pilot dies and a flash clone is created, the clone doesn't (necessarily) have a different name.
Counter point, in reality just about every vehicle has a designation, be it a serial number, a formal name, or nick name, while crews very rarely receive a permanent code name, instead being assigned code names during the planning stage of a mission for operation security reasons, though will often give nick names to one another as well. Example: Lafayette Pool was a tank commander during WW2 attributed 12 confirmed tank kills making him an ace of aces, though was better known as "War Daddy" by his crew, while he named the three separate tanks he commanded "In The Mood" 1 through 3 respectively.
I never noticed that before regarding codenames and named vehicles. Now that you mention it, it holds true to even real life pilots and vehicles as well.
We have one character who is obligated by cultural dictate to recover the wreck of their mech when it is destroyed, as it is an heirloom passed down from Lancer to Lancer in their dynasty. Sure parts are replaced and there might be very little left of the original "Noblesse Oblige" but like the name suggests, one does not simply walk away from duty. Another character took on the mech originally created by their parents who used it in a planetary uprising against a tyrant administrator and while "Gumball" certainly is no beauty and has more dents and scratches than a teapot that was thrown into a stone grinder, it has yet to break down. Mind you both machines are essentially Foreverests. The one character that fits this videos theme the most is a non-union soldier who works as a mercenary for Union called "Shrike" who pilots the SDW-HF-9-701 (Solidani Defence Works, Heavy Frame, 9th Army Group, unit 701) or as the rest of the teams calls it "701". I guess the point I am making is that names will come up eventually. The names given to the frames by their enemies are very different. "Noblesse Oblige" for instance is known as the "Purple Death" and the "Final Glint". The former because they ripped through an entire squad of units without them managing a single hit, causing the survivors to flee. While the latter refers to the fact that the last thing an enemy pilot will likely see of it is the glint of its scope. "Gumball" is known as the "Six Legged Butcher" as Gumball is very, very good at killing infantry and ripping enemy pilots out of their cockpits. And 701? Is known as the "Butcher of Alossia" or the "Wolf of Wolves". The first name she earned by essentially handling all enemy opposition in one mission while the rest of the team duked it out with the boss and "Wolf of Wolves" was earned by defeating the enemy commander who they have been fighting for the entire campaign in charge of the Black Wolves Company.
I don't name the printed mech, I name the *blueprint* I assembled to print the mech. If my Big Stick v1.0 explodes, I print another Big Stick v1.0 or tweak it and print a Big Stick v1.1
I will add. More humanoid looking items are more likly to get named. If my gun had 2 googly eyes on it. I'd give it a name like Powie. Because its funny but also because by adding googly eyes humanity has been imposed on it. Also theres a long history of boats and planes getting names/identies. Planes generally get refer3d to as the pilots call sign. But to me it feels more like the planes identity. You have that call sign because you fly that plane with it. These call signs are still however actually thr pilots so they would get moved between mechs. This does also add characterisation space. A newer pilot wont have a name of their mech. And a veteran that has had loads of different mechs would also not name theirs. Someone whos stuck to 1 model. Or kept a single part of their original as a ship of thesius style memento might have a name in mind. But also. You can name something and not tell others. The name could be something you dont think others would care about. But to those who understand, you might let yourself say the name of your mechs soul
Okay... I went into this thinking "No, you're wrong, this is ridiculous!" but came out convinced. What I can see, though, is individual mech names (I love the randoms in CompConn, they often come out so fitting!) to be the printer file names used by the pilot. If you got like a bunch of them saved, at least I wouldn't call them so-and-so Mk. x, because after some time I couldn't remember shit about them. You don't have to share these names, they don't need to make sense to anybody but you, but they might still be around.
A good way to reconcile this issue is to think of the design itself as the mech. My Durga started as an Everest that I constantly changed. Then I got a different frame, and it was still Durga. It's all about the emotional connection.
But what about every Armored Core pilot ever in the "no codename=named mech" vs "codename=no named mech" debate? They almost all go by callsigns *and* have named mechs. Simple names and callsigns, sure, but most never go by their actual names. I know Lancer works differently than Armored Core, but we see mechs get destroyed/severely damaged in Armored Core, but the pilot survives and then returns later with the same mech either rebuilt or repaired or even with parts replaced, so the argument of "you're just going to be rebuilding or remaking your mech each mission" doesn't quite work in that regard, though I do still understand your case from the Lancer TTRPG point of view
I always name my mech but I never refer to my mech in my game by any kind of actual name, the names basically are always a joke based on the character or an inside joke with that friend group
Armored Core lets you name your AC configurations, which is mostly good for organizing. Like I know Cryptid is my testbed for the weirder parts I've earned, and although the individual parts are often changed to the point it's a totally different vehicle it doesn't stray outside the basic theme. Same thing for a speed-focused frame, heavy armor/artillery, general-purpose, although the components change even within the same model I can open the menu in a year's time and know the basics of any of them at a glance.
I whole-heartedly disagree with you. Allow me to provide some examples along the lines of your premise and explain why they show names for your mech can be quite important. None-Mech Media - The Starship Enterprise, or the Yamato, or Voyager, The Orville, The Delta Flyer, The Nathan James (From The Last Ship; where mind you they have Callsigns), The Battlestar Galactica (Mind you, still have Callsigns). Mech-Based Media - Eva-00-04, The Entire Gundam series, but most especially G-Gundam (Shining Gundam, and King of Hearts repectively), Esclawflone. I will skip Lancer, as you do admit the system itself does expect your mech has a name, your line of reasoning is that it does not fit. The reoccurring trend among all of these fictions is that the name of the thing means something more than the assembly of parts that make them up. In Star Trek the ship is a whole character complete upon herself, which is most readily apparent in Voyager. The Nathan James has that name thanks to a legend about an old General who singlehandedly took down a fleet. Half way through the show the ship is entirely overhauled but it is still the Nathan James. The Spirit remains in the machine as it were. In Lancer the setting heavily expects you to view yourself not as Mech-Pilots, (Evangelion) or a Neo-Tank brigade (Most of Gundam), or some other form of heavy weapons support (Something like Mech Warrior). It wants you to view yourself as the Cavalry, riding steeds of war into battle. You Ride a Mech, not Pilot it, you Mount, not enter. From this simple outlook it would seem outright cruel not to name your loyal steed, for while it may obey your orders, and listen to your commands, it is not you.
I think your point about horses is really good. But I think a lot of your other examples line up with mine. Voyager is not the equivalent of a Lancer mech, the Delta Flier is closer, and as I alluded to visually, it fits the thesis in that Tom Paris doesn't have a codename. I'll also point out that Galactica hotshots have codenames, but (if I recall) their individual vipers don't. Again, Shinji, Domon, Van- no pilot codenames for named mechs. And at the risk of digging too hard into a metaphor, if a badass cavalry soldier loses their horse they are not going to give their next horse the same name.
@@LopezFamilyVarietyChannel I appreciate the response. The reference to Star Trek is to bring up the notion that the name of an inanimate object is part of the "spirit" of that thing. There are many Enterprises for example, but each shares a spirit regardless of the design of the hull, or even the nature of the crew. For Galactica there is some allusion that the Raptors and Vipers have names, but more specifically the Stealth Viper designed wholly aboard the Galactica itself is named after President Roslin, ergo Named Ship, and Codenamed Pilot. Shinju is Pilot-1, a cold codename not often used by those whom care for him. Damon's Codename is the King of Hearts, which is used whenever the Deck-Style codesigns are brought up, and is prominent when he uses his special move. I do agree with you, most wouldn't name their horse the same thing as their old horse. My notion concerning that is mostly around the difference between the two. Allusion and Metaphore aside, and discounting some exceptions, Mechs are machines and while we may (Or may not) anthromorphize them, they do have a type of eternality that biological organisms don't, which brings me back to the Star Trek reference.
To make a great example: Super Sentai and by extension Power Rangers. Often, the Mechs/Zords are ancient, and some episodes can focus around the machines which are often alive. These beings reflect the theme (Example with Dinoforce using Dinosaur themed designs)- the names kind of become irrelevant after you start punching a Kaiju with a T-Rex drill
I like the idea where if there are multiple factions your pilots are facing off against, each faction will give you their own call sign for you based on your accomplishments or rivals you unintentionally create for letting enemy pilot live/escape (which they might return with a new mech in the future and will likely beeline their way toward their rival for another round). Even more fun is if/when you do change mech chassis, let them hear the enemies reactions through the open comms when they realize that one of their name combatants has changed mechs, like an enemy mech crosses swords with you only to realize too late that it's "The Pilot Shredder of Galia III" they're facing... and they made the misfortune of getting into melee range with you. And if agree upon by the rest of the table, then allow for pilots to get a single word "base callsign" which would probably be used by some NPCs in the party's base of operations, but the way they get it is the same as how fighter pilots get theirs; based on something memorable or something really stupid you did around the base.
probably the zestiest thing about this video is people bringing up the idea of your enemies giving you your callsign. It's something I hadn't encountered or thought about.
You can’t stop me from naming my mechs song lyrics. Edit: I do really like the idea of including the iteration in the name though! I feel like specific builds your pilot tends to run should have a further distinction though. The name is just another personalization and bit of flare.
The way my brain curled when you said "was nightrider the car or the driver" felt like when I watched the "Nic Cage good or bad" episode of Community...
But isnt it cool when the main character sticks to its old car/mech/thing for most of the anime or film meanwhile other people get a new one and it talks to it as if it was a friend?
Randomly got recommended this video and I wanted to say a few things. 1. I never played or read the rules of Lancer before. Not sure why I was recommended this video really. But Mechs are cool. Anyone know how someone might go about getting into Lancer? 2. I don't know how this would work in practice but this was the one question that came to my mind while watching this video but it wasn't really addressed so asking it anyway. If the pilot is the one that build a certain mech in a certain way, why not give the nickname to the "blueprint"? Like your pilot's callsign is "Wrench" and his mech is named "Firebrand". When Firebrand is destroyed, he just prints a new model that has the same chasis and many of the core elements of the old one and it's also named "Firebrand". Because "Firebrand" is not the individual mech but rather the complete package with the body, the weapon types, the special modifications etc. Extending this, if you get a better mech, you can name it in a progressive sense. Like maybe your first mech was named "Paladin". Then when you get a better mech model, your new mech is called "Paragon" and then when you get an even better model it could be named "Archangel" etc. Would that be a good way to do Mech nicknames?
Came into this thinking I would vehemently disagree but by the end of the video I was convinced. The only thing with me is that I think you should name each different frame something different so that you can quickly differentiate them. Probably a variation of the callsign.
So from someone that is a general mech enjoyer and is tentatively curious about Lancer but hasn't picked up the actual rulebook yet, what do you mean theres basically no consequence for your mech getting destroyed? And if I wanted one, like if I'm not playing in the game's universe and I wanted to make my own, what is a good way to go about doing that? Is there any sort of mechanic around costs and expenses?
in Lancer you gain License Levels after every mission. You apply those to a specific license when you get them. So if you're at LL3 you have 3 levels of a mech's license which can be all 3 levels of one mech, or 1 lv of 3 different mechs, or whatever combination. You then 3d print your mech and go on your next mission. If your mech makes it or doesn't make it back you are free to 3d print another mech with any changes you care to make and take that on the next mission. If you really want to have a unique mech in Lancer you have two options 1) play an atlas since that has an in-universe reason for being a hereditary mech, or go online and find one of the dozens of homebrew settings that change things up. But my true recommendation is that you pick up Lancer and read it, and think about WHY it does things differently. It may expand your enjoyment of mech media.
I do have a counterpoint for that... I like to think of the pilots, many times, being partially responsible for the customization of their mech. I mean, they might not customize everything, and be part of every part of the process... But they still are substantial about it. And in that sense, many pilots could see their mechs as being kind of like a whole concept they built, that's why they give them not only a specific paint job, but also accessories and specific weapons and things that they like. In a sense, it's their creation. And it's natural for you to name your creation. Is it disposable? Yes... But, honestly? So are the pilots. There's a whole session in lancer about cloning in that regard. You could even have a character that is basically a clone of a clone of many more clones, that continuously serve the same role in the same mech... (Yes, very good concept for a manticore player). So, yeah. They're disposable, but not really. Same thing with their mech. And, while I know that they can change their mech constantly... I do like to think they give them nicknames so to keep a sense of familiarity with their work. Same way a person might give a nickname for a car they bought that they really liked.
But you see, its more fun to name your mech. to me it's like naming your pokemon, like the mechs in lancer they are infinitly replaceable, you can always catch another, you dont name them cus they're one of one or what not, you name cus they're your freinds, your allies, the ones youve fought alongside the whole journey, same with the lancer mechs, sure you can print a new one, but this one is yours. (plus some mechs in lancer can fully be sentient, not like you put a nhp in them, like minotaur is just sentient)
calling it a hot take really undersells it, this is like the core of a star hot, but very good points, this was excellent food for thought, i'm still gonna name my mechs because it's how i do
I feel vindicated I'm a huge Tom parkinson Morgan (abbadon) fan so, when i started playing a few weeks ago, I made my call sign 12 diving falcons (sipped the blood of heaven) thinking it was the name of the mech. when my group told me "no thats not your mech name thats your call sign. whats your mech name??" I got incredulous and said "thats dumb why have two?? my mechs name is 12 diving falcons Mk.1. 12DF for short, happy now?" they honeslty didnt get it at all and made jokes about my mech not making it to mk.2. 3 names is too friggin many! I only need 2 tops!
Fair enough if you don’t wanna name your mech but you’re naming the essence of the mech, it’s personal design by you for you. The names I give my mechs are often an esoteric reflection of their purpose. Even if you have the same chassis as someone else you’ll still suffer difficulty piloting their mech which showcases just how personal each mech. Plus if you think about it why do you keep your name if your body eventually replaces every single cell that makes you you? Because it’s still you regardless of it all. Even though you can print a whole replacement mech you’re not allowed to have multiple, the old becomes an empty husk as the essence inhabits a new. Even in other media like gundam a mech will have a name but get so broken they’re basically building a new one or they’ll upgrade to a new version that basically uses none of the old but keep the name like Barbatos.
Counterpoint, people give their roombas pet name. They're replacable, and people don't cry about losing a roomba. Another is people put names on bombers, fighter jets, etc., despite of course no one will call the plane's name when it got shot down. It is human nature to anthropomorphise, so anthropomorphising a machine that we (the pilot) care for, personalize as an extension of ourselves, be with for a LONG time, with some do look fairly humanoid as well, is not that weird. So, personally, instead of "don't name your mech", give your mech names that you would give to a plane, or a roomba, and treat them as such. Of course, that all depends on the pilot. Whether they want to name their mechs or not, and if they think "Heavenly Scorcher Demon of Heaven" is a fitting name for a pet and therefore a mech, unironically.
If I may spam a bit, I am not familiar with Lancer, only it is a highly acclaimed mecha TTRPG but I hate the printer bit of lore. I will instead use Armored Trooper Votes. In the first season alone, the main character uses maybe 3 different mechs; each one being equipped differently. He probably uses 2-3 dozen throughout the whole series/ franchise as they keep getting trashed. He never names them and is referred to just his name. The few named machines are special modified machines but even then; the pilots are what they are known by. The reason Chirico used so many machines is because the ATM-09-ST Scopedog and the ATM-09-SA Scopedog II are so widely produced that they can be found anywhere.
First off, Love what of your work I have seen. Thank you. I just want to add my random opinion onto the internet. In anime, you name swords. I think you should do the same with the mechs in this game. I know thickly you name a sword for the same reason you name a super mech in an anime, that it's a specific sword with a specific history, but I like the idea of naming the mech. If nothing else, I tend to think of it as the file name for the bring out, and that file is your mech. In my mind, the meck is not the physical object you pilot, its the set of customized code and instructions the Lancer made, and it gets its own mane. I'm not sure my argument is very clear or any good, I just like the idea of naming a mech being part of the customization. Thank you again for the video
You're not wrong that the mechs of Lancer's setting are physically disposable and that it's the talent of their pilots that is the valuable resource, but I think the conclusion you draw only gets half the point. I think Lancer is also of the stance that the copy is just as valuable as the original, that scarcity and specificity does not equal value. You can see this as a subtheme of the setting in the way human clones have their rights enshrined by Union and the idea of the original in any way exerting control over their clone being called out as deplorable and inhuman, and to a lesser extent in the way that NHPs are copies of copies of their progenitor, and how GALSIM shows a countless number of realities and we're just looking at one of them. The characters of Lancer live in a post-scarcity galaxy, at least in theory, and the player characters as you point out factually do face no real scarcity when it comes to their ability to get a new mech. They don't have the same relationship to manufactured objects in general that we do, and might think of them more comparably to digital files or a particular character or item in a video game. You still get attached to your favourite digital doohickeys, even though there's actually no meaningful way for them to be the same *thing* from session to session, they're not objects in the first place, they're signals. They're an idea. And that's what you're naming, when you name your mech. You're naming the idea of it. So like. You don't have to name your mech. But you also don't have to not. You can name it however your character would name it, or you can name it for your own benefit as a player and have it just be a nameless, disposable tool. You can play a character who insists that all of their mechs are Big Danger regardless of how different they are, or you can play a character who picks a new name every time they iterate on the design at all. It's an interesting part of the fictional space to play in.
I agree with your logic and don't at the same time. Naming your mech in Lancer is actually the Ship of Theseus problem, or the Transporter problem. If you're rebuilding an identical mech, is it the same mech? I'd argue "yes" because it's the same build. In other mech games, I get my mech blown apart and destroyed, and I build a new one, or rebuild it with only a few of the same parts. Then next time, rebuild it with a few different parts from "the same" mech but it's lost all the parts it had in its first fight. Do I rename it? Or add "2" on the end of the name? No, it's the same *build* so it keeps the name. It's the custom design that's named, not the individual instance of that design. I've named my Chomolungma "Starlit Road" and when I get a licence for the mech I want to run after that, I'm going to be naming that build "Moonlit Path" instead. If I swap out appearance-defining parts on my Chomolungma, I'll probably rename it too. If I refit it for a completely different playstyle, I'll definitely rename it. And when I switch to another frame with a totally different aesthetic and theme, that's definitely not going to be the same build, and thus, not keeping the same name. And in many Gundam shows, the pilot is identified by a personal name/title, and the mech often has its own name. In some media (including a couple of Gundam shows), the pilot has a callsign, and the mech has an official name which is sometimes referenced when talking about the machine's specific capabilities vs. speaking to its pilot, but the mech also has a second name, one given to it by the enemies, who don't know its official name and come up with a descriptive term to reference that unique machine. These specific examples are exceptions that prove the rule, but it's still something that you can justify as an in-universe appropriate reason for a pilot to choose to name their mechs. Also I didn't even question PIzza Mk.X because even though my experience so far has been one single-battle mission (our group has been told to expect a lot of these), the rules make it clear that a mission can sometimes be a long-form story experience not just a battle or two with a short rest between.
You seem to be working from a fundamental misunderstanding. The entry "callsign" in Lancer IS the name of the mech, (Also, your example is flawed. Sulleta says that she and Aerial were "raised together", so there is no "greater history" for her to live up to. Also, she is shown to be the only person who can fly it correctly from episode one.)
You make a good argument around the established lore and mechanics of the game. This is however a _bad_ aspects about the lore and mechanics of the game, and players are doing right by themselves by disregarding those aspects entirely. This is not to say that there isn't some interesting ideas in LANCER's unique lore about the mass-produced serial nature of mechs, but a massive part of the _fantasy_ one seeks to emulate in a mech RPG is that you are the very special pilot of a very special machine. Furthermore even the awesome art of the book depicts a variety of cool original mechs standing next to their cool original pilots, prety much wearing matching outfits. They don't look interchangeable at all, they all seem built as a born-together, die together duo. The stats and skill might _imply_ the pilot is what matters, but the ammount of customization, the creative process and the gameplay leans so heavily towards the mech while the "pilot" gameplay is so minimalist and boring that they KNOW what matters is the mech. Even if you can change them on the fly. You play either a Mech or a Mech's pilot. Not some sci-fi pilot dude that _sometimes_ pilots a variety of mechs. The fact that so many people are playing "Sunmask & Heaven's Uncompromising Fist" proves theres a massive ludonarrative dissonance between the player's fantasy, the game's pitch and the minutia of the lore and gameplay. They could write in something about the mech's Machine Mind being cloud-stored with the pilot's license or something and re-downloaded whenever the mech is destroyed or whatever. Heck, probably players already house-rule that already. Then you could have your cake and eat it too.
"The fact that so many people are playing "Sunmask & Heaven's Uncompromising Fist" proves theres a massive ludonarrative dissonance between the player's fantasy, the game's pitch and the minutia of the lore and gameplay." I know, that's what I'M saying! Except my conclusion is not "patch the game", it's "patch yourself". Have you tried playing a kickass pilot with a modular, disposable mech? Don't knock it till you've tried it, Tocayo.
@@LopezFamilyVarietyChannel Maybe! I think RPG settings walk a fine line between offering an original setting with new interesting concepts that are intriguing and inviting to play, and allowing players to play out, or at least approximately adapt, their genre-fantasies. In this regard the game seems to be choosing the former over the later. I think a game should at least _try_ to do both to some degree. And if you have to choose, I'd advise to choose the later over the former. Since an elegant ruleset with ultra-generic setting can still be a lot of fun and adapted for a thousand interesing stories. While a brilliantly original but obtuse and speciffic setting will struggle to invite and retain players. This game should and easily _could_ allow both. Maybe some character backgrounds or manufacturers focus on versatile pilots with adaptative disposable mech and some others are specialized pilots with a deep bond to a single reusable one. I'm not knocking the concept of a kickass pilot with a modular, disposable mech, I'm questioning weather if it should be the only or even _default_ option, when it doesn't even seem to be the game's marketing pitch.
@@Rodrigo_Vega I think the game does do both, but (as with any game that relies on systems) has to pick and choose what tropes it emphasizes; There's a mech that's a gunslinger, there's a mech with a giant drill, ther's a mech with a single-target, delete-you-from-the-universe punch... but for example, there are no combining Mechs in Lancer, and everyone seems to be ok with that, even though mechs that combine into one big supermech are a large part of the genre. In the end a lot of these seemingly weird departures from mech canon are in service of the play experience. Lancer has a wealth of little mechanical buttons and levers and it doesn't want to deny its players the ability to play with the ones they like. BUT this is an RPG with rules and lore; if your game has huge modularity and you don't want to penalize players for making choices, that is going to affect the lore. And if it doesn't affect the lore it'll cause dissonance. Should Lancer trend more generic? I don't think so. This community is still discovering aspects of Lancer, we're treating it like art, having discussions about it. In the end, I think, the big swings are what's going to keep people interested.
Ive need people agree with this take And while i still name my mech for the cheese factor XD Like i am the kind of player who would name all my mechs HEAVENS UNCOMPROMISING FIST A good example of this was my first character was a trauma surgeon called DOC And my Everest had the Super Heavy sword so i called it THE SCALPEL Then when i moved on in licence level i got black witch frames And so i called my Black Witch M.R.I as both a medical callback and a reference to the black witches magnet bullshit (And then as a joke mid session i revealed it stood for Mrs Richards Insurance as my pilots surname was Richards 🤣)
This is the worst take i've seen in a minute. If my mech lasts long enough i'm giving it a silly little name just like LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ARMORED VEHICLE PILOT DOES WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU LITERALLY BRING UP 2 EXAMPLES IN YOUR FIRST POINT THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT IT WHAT THE FUCK.
Your arguement makes sense. Lancer is for mech-shaped vehicle stories, not actual mecha stories. So if I want to play an RPG that resemble the mech media I consume, avoid Lancer. This actually helped me decide whether or not to try the game at all. And the answer is no.
Fair enough if you don’t wanna name your mech but you’re naming the essence of the mech, it’s personal design by you for you. The names I give my mechs are often an esoteric reflection of their purpose. Even if you have the same chassis as someone else you’ll still suffer difficulty piloting their mech which showcases just how personal each mech. Plus if you think about it why do you keep your name if your body eventually replaces every single cell that makes you you? Because it’s still you regardless of it all. Even though you can print a whole replacement mech you’re not allowed to have multiple, the old becomes an empty husk as the essence inhabits a new. Even in other media like gundam a mech will have a name but get so broken they’re basically building a new one or they’ll upgrade to a new version that basically uses none of the old but keep the name like Barbatos.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Alternative. Only your enemies can name your mech
Thats genius and I'm taking that, thank you kindly stranger
Good idea
While i dont disagree, for me naming your mech is for the pilot's characterization. People name things that are important to them, cars, accessories, tools, etc. we name them for ourselves more than others, people name their cars just give it character, soldiers and hunters often name weapons they use for long duration's of time, I'd imagine a pilot in lancer would do the same, especially because most pilots do make unique customizations and modifications to their mechs. Mechanically I fully agree the game disincentivizes the need to name you mech, but role-play wise in the post scarcity setting setting we play in I'd argue that even if a mech gets destroyed and is reprinted, we'd still probably name the mech, just like how in a post scarcity world we'd probably still name our stuff.
EDIT: to clarify I do think you made some good points, and I think I'll personally start using the name to tally deaths on my chasis, but personally I think giving your mechs names is improtant to characterization and role play for pilots.
I always saw it as a name for the design, not the physical mech. The mech is an easily replaceable hunk of metal, but it's also a highly modular custom machine. The way a pilot combines a frame and modules to synergize with each other and the pilot's own skills and tactics is a form of self-expression. Just because you can print endless copies of an artwork doesn't mean you can't title it.
@@ValkisCalmor Exactly. The machine may die but the idea lives on. The mech's codename can describe the whole pattern group a pilot uses, even if the individual instance is destroyed.
my character is from an oral traditionalist society that makes NHPs to help with memorizing stories and history then chains them by pure accident because we see them as human but without bodies and better memories. so my personal NHP (in technophile) has the name of an ancient african hero: Mwindo. the mech is just his body and bodies are transient things so why bother naming it? but I agree in other cultures it makes sense to give names to things you grow attached too.
Good video and interesting point of discussion. I do not agree with your thesis, and this is why: “This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine”. The mechs are modular, replaceable tools, this is true, but also in the rules if you pilot someone else’s mech you do so with great difficulty (you are impaired and slowed). So yes, everyone gets an Everest, but it’s YOUR Everest!
My second point would be that in CompCon you can of course come up with different builds for your mech(s) why not give them different names to distinguish them? I have a pilot who is the long-rifle sniper, and he has two main builds: a Deaths-head and a Sherman, Respectively they called “Deinopidae” and “Mr. McFeely”. They reflect what the build does, and I can easily pick which one will work best for each mission.
I wholeheartedly agree that a player typically needs only a call sign or a named mech. In most other games you only need to remember your friends characters names. In Lancer you need to remember their characters names, their call signs AND their mechs names. It’s a bit much.
I don’t want to detract from your video, and I hope that a conversation can arise from it. One way or another, it doesn’t matter too much narratively, and whatever everyone at the table likes (whatever they find fun) that should be what matters in the end.
My one and only counterpoint are characters who name their mechs like u name every tool in your toolbox “yeah I broke big bertha (whatever giant wrench) but this one is the new big bertha” and just being totally fine replacing them but that’s for once ur more comfortable replacing them
But I do like the general advice
Totally, the point here is mostly to interrogate Lancer's themes re: Mech disposeability.
Armored Core completely subverts this though, and is also the pinnacle of the genre. the pilots have a broad term, be it ravens, lynxes, hounds, etc.
the pilots all have callsigns as well, some examples being: Invincible Rummy, Patch The Good Luck, Hustler One, and V.IV Rusty.
the Armored Cores also all have names, corresponding to the mentioned pilot callsigns are: Mad Stomp, No Count, Nine Ball, and Steel Haze.
I call my mech "Steve". Steve is the worst.
I think it greatly depends on the pilot. It makes sense for some, and not for others. For example, in one of my campaigns we have a Hosue of Glass noble who made their family mad at them, and got their privileges revoked. Later they earned their frame back from their family and it had a storied history. Yea, it's probably been reprinted who knows how many times, but that frame's serial number is tied to that frame name. We have another character from a planet who more or less worships an NHP and has a shard of it in the from of the Technophile trait. Their NHP and their frame share a name- functionally a character as the frame serves as the NHP's body. We have another character who spent years mostly alone on these remote colonies, living in his frame. It has a name, because until the squad, it was more or less his only friend/family, the only thing he relied on. Another character in a different game is a clone of a Albatross hero. She named the frame- now her "daughter" is trying to live up to the legend, or forge her own. As for the frame getting destroyed and being gone: It's like the old fighter pilots or bomber crews having a keepsake from the original they put in the new one, even if it gets wrecked. Maybe those characters don't need callsigns becasue they have those things? But then, something would alos be missing.
It is totally a style of game, and a style of player though. I suppose my thought would just be that if the frame has a name, the reason it has a name is just as important as the name itself.
I agree, I think that's the disconnect that Lancer has with other mech media, the specialness of a mech has to be narratively earned, it's not a given.
I'm on board, don't name your mech, unless you're Casval Deikun using the pseudonym Char Aznable, under cover as Quattro Bajeena and your mech is coated in gold.
Counterpoint (/affectionate): COMP/CON won't let me make a mech without naming it! so strictly speaking I kind of have to. I know I 'could' just name it after my pilot's callsign... but then I can't make the name a pun, or a cultural reference. The 'disposability' of chassis then becomes a benefit, as i get to keep making new puns or referencing new media, rather than running one joke into the ground!
(Because if I'm running up a meme nelson build designed to travel at impossible speeds there's no way i'm not naming it 'Chì Tù' or somthing similar.)
Seriously though, on one level I agree that the instrumentality of mecha in the setting is a vital componant of it, but one of the main themes of Lancer is the essential character of humanity being persistant over time, and we human tend to anthropomophise our tools, especially cars and other cool means of transport. Every military since the development of the tank has had crews name their vehicle, and even if the Ship of Thesius argument applies, the name may stick and be retained. I think it's a largely unavoidable aspect of human nature to want to put some 'personhood' to the thing that is somthing between personal armour, battle tank and fighter jet, to which you're entrusting your life.
And of course, if you have a player who simply doesn't gel at all with the idea of mecha being disposable (I have a friend who simply cannot get over the amount of waste embodied in the energetics cost of continually reprinting rather than repairing) the 3rd party Intercorp suppliment has a Talent for just such folks, called 'ANTIQUARIAN' which emphasises treating your mech as a living relic, constantly repairing it rather than simply using it as a disposable tool, "despite the condescending smiles of their fellow Lancers."
Interesting take. I really see naming a mech as something that makes that particular mech more distinctive from other makes of that model but ultimately, it is the pilot that gives the mech that personality.
Interestingly, almost all NPC lore blurbs include the names of both a notable pilot of that frame class and their mech.
However, while the pilot names are all just their ordinary names, on the level of John Brown, the mechs have over-the-top, memorable names.
So it seems like Lancers are known by their callsigns, where as regular pilots are known by their mechs?
ooh, good observation!
If I may add to this a tad; in military, there are call signs like Echo 1 or Urzu 3. Then there are code names among the pilots of that squadron and if that pilot gets really good and the enemy takes note; they will call that machine something else like the RX-78-2 Gundam was called the white devil among Zeon pilots as the gundam was just the gundam but in a realistic military setting; that gundam would be a call sign that will change to keep the enemy off guard should comms be intercepted.
A slight counter to said example I had seen in comments are tankers. I would also say bomber crews and fighter pilots of world war 2.Example. There is a fictional but probable M1A1 Abrams named "Kill Master". "Kill Master" is what the crew may name their tank but it will have a call sign, Sierra 2. If Sierra 2 is famous enough; the enemy may call it the desert demon or the sniper of the sands or whatever.
When people name their mechs in Lancer they aren't naming that particular physical manifestation, they're naming that custom combination of licensed gear and weapons and frame. Therefore when it's destroyed that named combination doesn't disappear, it can be reprinted and will be the same combination, and therefore have the same name. In the same way that if your pilot dies and a flash clone is created, the clone doesn't (necessarily) have a different name.
Cool argument. However, my enemies are getting dropped by me and Bubby IV Esquire: The Thick Bottomed
Counter point, in reality just about every vehicle has a designation, be it a serial number, a formal name, or nick name, while crews very rarely receive a permanent code name, instead being assigned code names during the planning stage of a mission for operation security reasons, though will often give nick names to one another as well.
Example: Lafayette Pool was a tank commander during WW2 attributed 12 confirmed tank kills making him an ace of aces, though was better known as "War Daddy" by his crew, while he named the three separate tanks he commanded "In The Mood" 1 through 3 respectively.
I never noticed that before regarding codenames and named vehicles. Now that you mention it, it holds true to even real life pilots and vehicles as well.
We have one character who is obligated by cultural dictate to recover the wreck of their mech when it is destroyed, as it is an heirloom passed down from Lancer to Lancer in their dynasty. Sure parts are replaced and there might be very little left of the original "Noblesse Oblige" but like the name suggests, one does not simply walk away from duty.
Another character took on the mech originally created by their parents who used it in a planetary uprising against a tyrant administrator and while "Gumball" certainly is no beauty and has more dents and scratches than a teapot that was thrown into a stone grinder, it has yet to break down.
Mind you both machines are essentially Foreverests.
The one character that fits this videos theme the most is a non-union soldier who works as a mercenary for Union called "Shrike" who pilots the SDW-HF-9-701 (Solidani Defence Works, Heavy Frame, 9th Army Group, unit 701) or as the rest of the teams calls it "701". I guess the point I am making is that names will come up eventually.
The names given to the frames by their enemies are very different. "Noblesse Oblige" for instance is known as the "Purple Death" and the "Final Glint". The former because they ripped through an entire squad of units without them managing a single hit, causing the survivors to flee. While the latter refers to the fact that the last thing an enemy pilot will likely see of it is the glint of its scope.
"Gumball" is known as the "Six Legged Butcher" as Gumball is very, very good at killing infantry and ripping enemy pilots out of their cockpits.
And 701? Is known as the "Butcher of Alossia" or the "Wolf of Wolves". The first name she earned by essentially handling all enemy opposition in one mission while the rest of the team duked it out with the boss and "Wolf of Wolves" was earned by defeating the enemy commander who they have been fighting for the entire campaign in charge of the Black Wolves Company.
I don't name the printed mech, I name the *blueprint* I assembled to print the mech.
If my Big Stick v1.0 explodes, I print another Big Stick v1.0 or tweak it and print a Big Stick v1.1
I will add. More humanoid looking items are more likly to get named.
If my gun had 2 googly eyes on it. I'd give it a name like Powie. Because its funny but also because by adding googly eyes humanity has been imposed on it.
Also theres a long history of boats and planes getting names/identies.
Planes generally get refer3d to as the pilots call sign. But to me it feels more like the planes identity. You have that call sign because you fly that plane with it. These call signs are still however actually thr pilots so they would get moved between mechs.
This does also add characterisation space. A newer pilot wont have a name of their mech. And a veteran that has had loads of different mechs would also not name theirs.
Someone whos stuck to 1 model. Or kept a single part of their original as a ship of thesius style memento might have a name in mind.
But also. You can name something and not tell others. The name could be something you dont think others would care about. But to those who understand, you might let yourself say the name of your mechs soul
Okay... I went into this thinking "No, you're wrong, this is ridiculous!" but came out convinced.
What I can see, though, is individual mech names (I love the randoms in CompConn, they often come out so fitting!) to be the printer file names used by the pilot. If you got like a bunch of them saved, at least I wouldn't call them so-and-so Mk. x, because after some time I couldn't remember shit about them. You don't have to share these names, they don't need to make sense to anybody but you, but they might still be around.
Who was that other amazingly handsome guy?! I had no idea you had a twin
A good way to reconcile this issue is to think of the design itself as the mech. My Durga started as an Everest that I constantly changed. Then I got a different frame, and it was still Durga. It's all about the emotional connection.
But what about every Armored Core pilot ever in the "no codename=named mech" vs "codename=no named mech" debate? They almost all go by callsigns *and* have named mechs. Simple names and callsigns, sure, but most never go by their actual names. I know Lancer works differently than Armored Core, but we see mechs get destroyed/severely damaged in Armored Core, but the pilot survives and then returns later with the same mech either rebuilt or repaired or even with parts replaced, so the argument of "you're just going to be rebuilding or remaking your mech each mission" doesn't quite work in that regard, though I do still understand your case from the Lancer TTRPG point of view
I always name my mech but I never refer to my mech in my game by any kind of actual name, the names basically are always a joke based on the character or an inside joke with that friend group
Armored Core lets you name your AC configurations, which is mostly good for organizing. Like I know Cryptid is my testbed for the weirder parts I've earned, and although the individual parts are often changed to the point it's a totally different vehicle it doesn't stray outside the basic theme. Same thing for a speed-focused frame, heavy armor/artillery, general-purpose, although the components change even within the same model I can open the menu in a year's time and know the basics of any of them at a glance.
Nice. That makes sense.
I whole-heartedly disagree with you. Allow me to provide some examples along the lines of your premise and explain why they show names for your mech can be quite important.
None-Mech Media - The Starship Enterprise, or the Yamato, or Voyager, The Orville, The Delta Flyer, The Nathan James (From The Last Ship; where mind you they have Callsigns), The Battlestar Galactica (Mind you, still have Callsigns).
Mech-Based Media - Eva-00-04, The Entire Gundam series, but most especially G-Gundam (Shining Gundam, and King of Hearts repectively), Esclawflone.
I will skip Lancer, as you do admit the system itself does expect your mech has a name, your line of reasoning is that it does not fit. The reoccurring trend among all of these fictions is that the name of the thing means something more than the assembly of parts that make them up. In Star Trek the ship is a whole character complete upon herself, which is most readily apparent in Voyager. The Nathan James has that name thanks to a legend about an old General who singlehandedly took down a fleet. Half way through the show the ship is entirely overhauled but it is still the Nathan James. The Spirit remains in the machine as it were.
In Lancer the setting heavily expects you to view yourself not as Mech-Pilots, (Evangelion) or a Neo-Tank brigade (Most of Gundam), or some other form of heavy weapons support (Something like Mech Warrior). It wants you to view yourself as the Cavalry, riding steeds of war into battle. You Ride a Mech, not Pilot it, you Mount, not enter. From this simple outlook it would seem outright cruel not to name your loyal steed, for while it may obey your orders, and listen to your commands, it is not you.
I think your point about horses is really good. But I think a lot of your other examples line up with mine.
Voyager is not the equivalent of a Lancer mech, the Delta Flier is closer, and as I alluded to visually, it fits the thesis in that Tom Paris doesn't have a codename. I'll also point out that Galactica hotshots have codenames, but (if I recall) their individual vipers don't.
Again, Shinji, Domon, Van- no pilot codenames for named mechs.
And at the risk of digging too hard into a metaphor, if a badass cavalry soldier loses their horse they are not going to give their next horse the same name.
@@LopezFamilyVarietyChannel I appreciate the response.
The reference to Star Trek is to bring up the notion that the name of an inanimate object is part of the "spirit" of that thing. There are many Enterprises for example, but each shares a spirit regardless of the design of the hull, or even the nature of the crew.
For Galactica there is some allusion that the Raptors and Vipers have names, but more specifically the Stealth Viper designed wholly aboard the Galactica itself is named after President Roslin, ergo Named Ship, and Codenamed Pilot.
Shinju is Pilot-1, a cold codename not often used by those whom care for him. Damon's Codename is the King of Hearts, which is used whenever the Deck-Style codesigns are brought up, and is prominent when he uses his special move.
I do agree with you, most wouldn't name their horse the same thing as their old horse. My notion concerning that is mostly around the difference between the two. Allusion and Metaphore aside, and discounting some exceptions, Mechs are machines and while we may (Or may not) anthromorphize them, they do have a type of eternality that biological organisms don't, which brings me back to the Star Trek reference.
To make a great example: Super Sentai and by extension Power Rangers.
Often, the Mechs/Zords are ancient, and some episodes can focus around the machines which are often alive. These beings reflect the theme (Example with Dinoforce using Dinosaur themed designs)- the names kind of become irrelevant after you start punching a Kaiju with a T-Rex drill
I like the idea where if there are multiple factions your pilots are facing off against, each faction will give you their own call sign for you based on your accomplishments or rivals you unintentionally create for letting enemy pilot live/escape (which they might return with a new mech in the future and will likely beeline their way toward their rival for another round).
Even more fun is if/when you do change mech chassis, let them hear the enemies reactions through the open comms when they realize that one of their name combatants has changed mechs, like an enemy mech crosses swords with you only to realize too late that it's "The Pilot Shredder of Galia III" they're facing... and they made the misfortune of getting into melee range with you.
And if agree upon by the rest of the table, then allow for pilots to get a single word "base callsign" which would probably be used by some NPCs in the party's base of operations, but the way they get it is the same as how fighter pilots get theirs; based on something memorable or something really stupid you did around the base.
probably the zestiest thing about this video is people bringing up the idea of your enemies giving you your callsign. It's something I hadn't encountered or thought about.
Naming my next pilot Scarecrow and their mech Strawman just to spite you.
You can’t stop me from naming my mechs song lyrics.
Edit: I do really like the idea of including the iteration in the name though! I feel like specific builds your pilot tends to run should have a further distinction though. The name is just another personalization and bit of flare.
The way my brain curled when you said "was nightrider the car or the driver" felt like when I watched the "Nic Cage good or bad" episode of Community...
that's high praise... I think!
I like to roleplay talking to my mechs. And personally I think it works better when they have distinct names.
Treat it like tanks were named during WW2
But isnt it cool when the main character sticks to its old car/mech/thing for most of the anime or film meanwhile other people get a new one and it talks to it as if it was a friend?
How about i do it anyway ?
You've got me thinking about Armoured Core 6 now. C-621 has a designation but you get a number of names Raven, Gun 13 etc.
I have to feel that Pilots probably name their printer presets though.
Historically pilot call signs are never picked by the person, they are names picked by your fellows,
Didn't expect that but I appreciate the points you made, these videos you make about lancer are awesome
Randomly got recommended this video and I wanted to say a few things.
1. I never played or read the rules of Lancer before. Not sure why I was recommended this video really. But Mechs are cool. Anyone know how someone might go about getting into Lancer?
2. I don't know how this would work in practice but this was the one question that came to my mind while watching this video but it wasn't really addressed so asking it anyway. If the pilot is the one that build a certain mech in a certain way, why not give the nickname to the "blueprint"? Like your pilot's callsign is "Wrench" and his mech is named "Firebrand". When Firebrand is destroyed, he just prints a new model that has the same chasis and many of the core elements of the old one and it's also named "Firebrand". Because "Firebrand" is not the individual mech but rather the complete package with the body, the weapon types, the special modifications etc. Extending this, if you get a better mech, you can name it in a progressive sense. Like maybe your first mech was named "Paladin". Then when you get a better mech model, your new mech is called "Paragon" and then when you get an even better model it could be named "Archangel" etc. Would that be a good way to do Mech nicknames?
check the description, there's some links for newbies.
Came into this thinking I would vehemently disagree but by the end of the video I was convinced. The only thing with me is that I think you should name each different frame something different so that you can quickly differentiate them. Probably a variation of the callsign.
So, Lancer mechs are like the Ship of Theseus?
that's a good way to look at it.
So from someone that is a general mech enjoyer and is tentatively curious about Lancer but hasn't picked up the actual rulebook yet, what do you mean theres basically no consequence for your mech getting destroyed? And if I wanted one, like if I'm not playing in the game's universe and I wanted to make my own, what is a good way to go about doing that? Is there any sort of mechanic around costs and expenses?
in Lancer you gain License Levels after every mission. You apply those to a specific license when you get them. So if you're at LL3 you have 3 levels of a mech's license which can be all 3 levels of one mech, or 1 lv of 3 different mechs, or whatever combination. You then 3d print your mech and go on your next mission. If your mech makes it or doesn't make it back you are free to 3d print another mech with any changes you care to make and take that on the next mission. If you really want to have a unique mech in Lancer you have two options 1) play an atlas since that has an in-universe reason for being a hereditary mech, or go online and find one of the dozens of homebrew settings that change things up. But my true recommendation is that you pick up Lancer and read it, and think about WHY it does things differently. It may expand your enjoyment of mech media.
I do have a counterpoint for that...
I like to think of the pilots, many times, being partially responsible for the customization of their mech.
I mean, they might not customize everything, and be part of every part of the process... But they still are substantial about it. And in that sense, many pilots could see their mechs as being kind of like a whole concept they built, that's why they give them not only a specific paint job, but also accessories and specific weapons and things that they like.
In a sense, it's their creation. And it's natural for you to name your creation.
Is it disposable? Yes... But, honestly? So are the pilots. There's a whole session in lancer about cloning in that regard. You could even have a character that is basically a clone of a clone of many more clones, that continuously serve the same role in the same mech... (Yes, very good concept for a manticore player).
So, yeah. They're disposable, but not really. Same thing with their mech. And, while I know that they can change their mech constantly... I do like to think they give them nicknames so to keep a sense of familiarity with their work. Same way a person might give a nickname for a car they bought that they really liked.
But you see, its more fun to name your mech. to me it's like naming your pokemon, like the mechs in lancer they are infinitly replaceable, you can always catch another, you dont name them cus they're one of one or what not, you name cus they're your freinds, your allies, the ones youve fought alongside the whole journey, same with the lancer mechs, sure you can print a new one, but this one is yours. (plus some mechs in lancer can fully be sentient, not like you put a nhp in them, like minotaur is just sentient)
Also, thank you for using the robot masters
Love this discussion and analysis!
So what youre really arguing is that you shouldnt name your mech like a vehicle you should name it like a sword.
I'm not, but that's a really good angle to think about this.
calling it a hot take really undersells it, this is like the core of a star hot, but very good points, this was excellent food for thought, i'm still gonna name my mechs because it's how i do
I feel vindicated
I'm a huge Tom parkinson Morgan (abbadon) fan so, when i started playing a few weeks ago, I made my call sign 12 diving falcons (sipped the blood of heaven) thinking it was the name of the mech. when my group told me "no thats not your mech name thats your call sign. whats your mech name??" I got incredulous and said "thats dumb why have two?? my mechs name is 12 diving falcons Mk.1. 12DF for short, happy now?" they honeslty didnt get it at all and made jokes about my mech not making it to mk.2. 3 names is too friggin many! I only need 2 tops!
but what if the mech has an NHP with a personality? doesn't it deserve a callsign of it's own then?
The NHP certainly does.
Fair enough if you don’t wanna name your mech but you’re naming the essence of the mech, it’s personal design by you for you. The names I give my mechs are often an esoteric reflection of their purpose. Even if you have the same chassis as someone else you’ll still suffer difficulty piloting their mech which showcases just how personal each mech. Plus if you think about it why do you keep your name if your body eventually replaces every single cell that makes you you? Because it’s still you regardless of it all. Even though you can print a whole replacement mech you’re not allowed to have multiple, the old becomes an empty husk as the essence inhabits a new. Even in other media like gundam a mech will have a name but get so broken they’re basically building a new one or they’ll upgrade to a new version that basically uses none of the old but keep the name like Barbatos.
Counterpoint, people give their roombas pet name. They're replacable, and people don't cry about losing a roomba. Another is people put names on bombers, fighter jets, etc., despite of course no one will call the plane's name when it got shot down.
It is human nature to anthropomorphise, so anthropomorphising a machine that we (the pilot) care for, personalize as an extension of ourselves, be with for a LONG time, with some do look fairly humanoid as well, is not that weird.
So, personally, instead of "don't name your mech", give your mech names that you would give to a plane, or a roomba, and treat them as such.
Of course, that all depends on the pilot. Whether they want to name their mechs or not, and if they think "Heavenly Scorcher Demon of Heaven" is a fitting name for a pet and therefore a mech, unironically.
If I may spam a bit, I am not familiar with Lancer, only it is a highly acclaimed mecha TTRPG but I hate the printer bit of lore. I will instead use Armored Trooper Votes. In the first season alone, the main character uses maybe 3 different mechs; each one being equipped differently. He probably uses 2-3 dozen throughout the whole series/ franchise as they keep getting trashed. He never names them and is referred to just his name. The few named machines are special modified machines but even then; the pilots are what they are known by. The reason Chirico used so many machines is because the ATM-09-ST Scopedog and the ATM-09-SA Scopedog II are so widely produced that they can be found anywhere.
Very well explained! Unfortunately this just makes me want to make my mech names even more epic and unrealistic
Armored Core would like to have a word with you
First off, Love what of your work I have seen. Thank you. I just want to add my random opinion onto the internet.
In anime, you name swords. I think you should do the same with the mechs in this game. I know thickly you name a sword for the same reason you name a super mech in an anime, that it's a specific sword with a specific history, but I like the idea of naming the mech. If nothing else, I tend to think of it as the file name for the bring out, and that file is your mech. In my mind, the meck is not the physical object you pilot, its the set of customized code and instructions the Lancer made, and it gets its own mane.
I'm not sure my argument is very clear or any good, I just like the idea of naming a mech being part of the customization.
Thank you again for the video
You're not wrong that the mechs of Lancer's setting are physically disposable and that it's the talent of their pilots that is the valuable resource, but I think the conclusion you draw only gets half the point. I think Lancer is also of the stance that the copy is just as valuable as the original, that scarcity and specificity does not equal value. You can see this as a subtheme of the setting in the way human clones have their rights enshrined by Union and the idea of the original in any way exerting control over their clone being called out as deplorable and inhuman, and to a lesser extent in the way that NHPs are copies of copies of their progenitor, and how GALSIM shows a countless number of realities and we're just looking at one of them.
The characters of Lancer live in a post-scarcity galaxy, at least in theory, and the player characters as you point out factually do face no real scarcity when it comes to their ability to get a new mech. They don't have the same relationship to manufactured objects in general that we do, and might think of them more comparably to digital files or a particular character or item in a video game. You still get attached to your favourite digital doohickeys, even though there's actually no meaningful way for them to be the same *thing* from session to session, they're not objects in the first place, they're signals. They're an idea. And that's what you're naming, when you name your mech. You're naming the idea of it.
So like. You don't have to name your mech. But you also don't have to not. You can name it however your character would name it, or you can name it for your own benefit as a player and have it just be a nameless, disposable tool. You can play a character who insists that all of their mechs are Big Danger regardless of how different they are, or you can play a character who picks a new name every time they iterate on the design at all. It's an interesting part of the fictional space to play in.
I agree with your logic and don't at the same time. Naming your mech in Lancer is actually the Ship of Theseus problem, or the Transporter problem. If you're rebuilding an identical mech, is it the same mech? I'd argue "yes" because it's the same build. In other mech games, I get my mech blown apart and destroyed, and I build a new one, or rebuild it with only a few of the same parts. Then next time, rebuild it with a few different parts from "the same" mech but it's lost all the parts it had in its first fight. Do I rename it? Or add "2" on the end of the name? No, it's the same *build* so it keeps the name. It's the custom design that's named, not the individual instance of that design. I've named my Chomolungma "Starlit Road" and when I get a licence for the mech I want to run after that, I'm going to be naming that build "Moonlit Path" instead. If I swap out appearance-defining parts on my Chomolungma, I'll probably rename it too. If I refit it for a completely different playstyle, I'll definitely rename it. And when I switch to another frame with a totally different aesthetic and theme, that's definitely not going to be the same build, and thus, not keeping the same name.
And in many Gundam shows, the pilot is identified by a personal name/title, and the mech often has its own name. In some media (including a couple of Gundam shows), the pilot has a callsign, and the mech has an official name which is sometimes referenced when talking about the machine's specific capabilities vs. speaking to its pilot, but the mech also has a second name, one given to it by the enemies, who don't know its official name and come up with a descriptive term to reference that unique machine. These specific examples are exceptions that prove the rule, but it's still something that you can justify as an in-universe appropriate reason for a pilot to choose to name their mechs.
Also I didn't even question PIzza Mk.X because even though my experience so far has been one single-battle mission (our group has been told to expect a lot of these), the rules make it clear that a mission can sometimes be a long-form story experience not just a battle or two with a short rest between.
lots of good points here.
@@LopezFamilyVarietyChannel So were your points. I can definitely see the validity of your position, even while I prefer to name what I'm making xD
You seem to be working from a fundamental misunderstanding. The entry "callsign" in Lancer IS the name of the mech, (Also, your example is flawed. Sulleta says that she and Aerial were "raised together", so there is no "greater history" for her to live up to. Also, she is shown to be the only person who can fly it correctly from episode one.)
You make a good argument around the established lore and mechanics of the game. This is however a _bad_ aspects about the lore and mechanics of the game, and players are doing right by themselves by disregarding those aspects entirely.
This is not to say that there isn't some interesting ideas in LANCER's unique lore about the mass-produced serial nature of mechs, but a massive part of the _fantasy_ one seeks to emulate in a mech RPG is that you are the very special pilot of a very special machine. Furthermore even the awesome art of the book depicts a variety of cool original mechs standing next to their cool original pilots, prety much wearing matching outfits. They don't look interchangeable at all, they all seem built as a born-together, die together duo.
The stats and skill might _imply_ the pilot is what matters, but the ammount of customization, the creative process and the gameplay leans so heavily towards the mech while the "pilot" gameplay is so minimalist and boring that they KNOW what matters is the mech. Even if you can change them on the fly. You play either a Mech or a Mech's pilot. Not some sci-fi pilot dude that _sometimes_ pilots a variety of mechs. The fact that so many people are playing "Sunmask & Heaven's Uncompromising Fist" proves theres a massive ludonarrative dissonance between the player's fantasy, the game's pitch and the minutia of the lore and gameplay. They could write in something about the mech's Machine Mind being cloud-stored with the pilot's license or something and re-downloaded whenever the mech is destroyed or whatever. Heck, probably players already house-rule that already. Then you could have your cake and eat it too.
"The fact that so many people are playing "Sunmask & Heaven's Uncompromising Fist" proves theres a massive ludonarrative dissonance between the player's fantasy, the game's pitch and the minutia of the lore and gameplay."
I know, that's what I'M saying! Except my conclusion is not "patch the game", it's "patch yourself". Have you tried playing a kickass pilot with a modular, disposable mech? Don't knock it till you've tried it, Tocayo.
@@LopezFamilyVarietyChannel Maybe! I think RPG settings walk a fine line between offering an original setting with new interesting concepts that are intriguing and inviting to play, and allowing players to play out, or at least approximately adapt, their genre-fantasies.
In this regard the game seems to be choosing the former over the later. I think a game should at least _try_ to do both to some degree. And if you have to choose, I'd advise to choose the later over the former. Since an elegant ruleset with ultra-generic setting can still be a lot of fun and adapted for a thousand interesing stories. While a brilliantly original but obtuse and speciffic setting will struggle to invite and retain players.
This game should and easily _could_ allow both. Maybe some character backgrounds or manufacturers focus on versatile pilots with adaptative disposable mech and some others are specialized pilots with a deep bond to a single reusable one. I'm not knocking the concept of a kickass pilot with a modular, disposable mech, I'm questioning weather if it should be the only or even _default_ option, when it doesn't even seem to be the game's marketing pitch.
@@Rodrigo_Vega I think the game does do both, but (as with any game that relies on systems) has to pick and choose what tropes it emphasizes; There's a mech that's a gunslinger, there's a mech with a giant drill, ther's a mech with a single-target, delete-you-from-the-universe punch... but for example, there are no combining Mechs in Lancer, and everyone seems to be ok with that, even though mechs that combine into one big supermech are a large part of the genre. In the end a lot of these seemingly weird departures from mech canon are in service of the play experience. Lancer has a wealth of little mechanical buttons and levers and it doesn't want to deny its players the ability to play with the ones they like. BUT this is an RPG with rules and lore; if your game has huge modularity and you don't want to penalize players for making choices, that is going to affect the lore. And if it doesn't affect the lore it'll cause dissonance.
Should Lancer trend more generic? I don't think so. This community is still discovering aspects of Lancer, we're treating it like art, having discussions about it. In the end, I think, the big swings are what's going to keep people interested.
Why did he censor Gipsy Danger?
"If you choose to ignore these aspects, you're fighting the game."
Yes, because lancer's lore isn't very good.
Ive need people agree with this take
And while i still name my mech for the cheese factor XD
Like i am the kind of player who would name all my mechs HEAVENS UNCOMPROMISING FIST
A good example of this was my first character was a trauma surgeon called DOC
And my Everest had the Super Heavy sword so i called it THE SCALPEL
Then when i moved on in licence level i got black witch frames
And so i called my Black Witch M.R.I as both a medical callback and a reference to the black witches magnet bullshit
(And then as a joke mid session i revealed it stood for Mrs Richards Insurance as my pilots surname was Richards 🤣)
Tanks are named by crews irl...just saying.
This is the worst take i've seen in a minute.
If my mech lasts long enough i'm giving it a silly little name just like LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ARMORED VEHICLE PILOT DOES WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
YOU LITERALLY BRING UP 2 EXAMPLES IN YOUR FIRST POINT THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT IT WHAT THE FUCK.
Congratulations. You are the most wrong person on the internet. Impressive. 😂
Your arguement makes sense. Lancer is for mech-shaped vehicle stories, not actual mecha stories. So if I want to play an RPG that resemble the mech media I consume, avoid Lancer. This actually helped me decide whether or not to try the game at all. And the answer is no.
pfffft! Oh No!!!
Fair enough if you don’t wanna name your mech but you’re naming the essence of the mech, it’s personal design by you for you. The names I give my mechs are often an esoteric reflection of their purpose. Even if you have the same chassis as someone else you’ll still suffer difficulty piloting their mech which showcases just how personal each mech. Plus if you think about it why do you keep your name if your body eventually replaces every single cell that makes you you? Because it’s still you regardless of it all. Even though you can print a whole replacement mech you’re not allowed to have multiple, the old becomes an empty husk as the essence inhabits a new. Even in other media like gundam a mech will have a name but get so broken they’re basically building a new one or they’ll upgrade to a new version that basically uses none of the old but keep the name like Barbatos.