TF Views

Here are my initial thoughts on setting up a PCC game. Given how important stats are in a game, that seemed like the best place to start.
Dom
-typed this up while monitoring a test session.


Stats:
One of the most basic elements of a game are the pieces' stats and rules. Pieces should
be different enough that the choice of what piece to use matters, but not so different that
choosing badly will make the game impossible to play,

Ideally the stat line would be based on, or at least follow from, tech spec numbers.
The trickiest part about this of course is going to be coming up with an agreed upon
scale that makes sense. (What exactly does "Firepower: 10" mean? What about "Rank: 5"?
More importantly, how are they relevant to the game itself?

How should transforming and alternate modes be handled? I started a game about 10 years back.
The best solution that I could come up with was that a character's default mode,
(usually robot), would use the default stat line and that the alternate mode(s) would use
modified stat lines. For example: (I am using Speedtrap as an example. I have no
intention of this ever being a character.)

Speedtrap- (robot/car/barricade)
Strength: 4
Intelligence: 7
Speed: 6
Endurance: 10
Rank: 5
Courage: 7
Firepower: 4
Skill: 7

car mode-
Speed: +2
Firepower: -3
Skill: +1

barricade mode:
Strength: +4
Speed: -5
Endurance: 10
Courage: -1
Firepower: -2
Skill: -7

Numbers with "+" or "-" signs are additions or subtractions to the base stat.

Similarly, Minicons and drones would have to have an impact on characters.

Minicons are dicey. My instinct is to make them subordinate to playable characters in terms of
game mechanics, but to consider them individuals in context. In other words, Minicons would be
considered part of the character, and purchases similar to war gear by players. But, in context,
Minicons would be individuals that the player could use. While the Minicon would be part of the
main character, they could execute tasks and actions without affecting the main character's allocation
for a given turn.
The way I see it, Minicons would have their own stat-lines that would be added to the main character's
state line as appropriate.

I think the best way to handle drones is to treat them as wargear, rather than characters. Each drone
would have a suite of abilities that could be added to the main character during combinations. The
stat-lines for drones would generally by higher than the stat-lines for Minicons, but would be divided
before being added to the main robot's stat-line when combining. And, using drones would impact a
character's allocation of tasks/actions for a turn. In theory, common or shared tasks could be
double-dipped, (two drones attacking one target counting as one task), and routinized tasks,
(patrolling an area), would only count on the turn they were initiated. I see individual drones
costing about half of what a Minicon does.

Cost in points is one of the more vital elements of a game, and also one of the more difficult to
get right. It is not unheard of for professional designers to completley miss the mark on this topic,
despite hours of testing and years of experience. I have seen accounts of games being released with
costs/stats being so out of order so as to require a revision before an new edition is released.
I would expect plenty of revision as we play.

Rough concept for translating tech specs to stats: (This is not exhaustive, and does not even really
cover basics like combat resolution.)

Strength: Ability to do heavy lifting tasks and inflict damage in close combat.
(This could be modified by special weapons or abilities.)
Intelligence: Ability to solve complext problems. (Resolved with dice roles?)
Speed: Ability to move between two points on a board as well as execute tasks.
Endurance: Rounds that a piece may be used consecutively before suffering negative modifiers
for "fatigue". Additionally, may be used against strength in combat resolution.
Rank: Used to determine leader of a party, either through intimidation or respect.
Courage: Effects likelihood of a character automatically retreating when faced with terrible dangers.
Firepower: Damage inflicted by and/or effective range of a ballistic/projected attack.
Skill: Ability to execute complex or intricate tasks as well as agility. Possibly the ability to carry
off a disguise.

This is basically how I did it a few years back. The only problem I ran into was factoring human weaponry vs. Cybertronian (since Cybertronian weaponry is obviously much more advanced).

Other than that, it looks like a good system. If we get this started I'm in.

This is still very rough. I figure that human weapons would have appropriate stat-lines relative to Cybertronian.


Dom
-working on character rules now.

I always liked stories where human artillery was a legitimate (if minor) threat to TFs (woo Minor Threat!!).

If this goes ahead, I wanna be the barbarian!!

er, i mean

Serious question actually: Is this on the understanding we co-opt existing PCC characters, or what? I really don't understand the Aligned universe. Granted, RiD2 never had limits like that, but that was our first try...

Gimme 5 minutes.

I am putting the finishing touches on that question as we speak.

Well the "Aligned Universe" is basically Hasbro saying "There are certain events that are universal to all TF timelines." And those events are represented in everything they've been putting out for the last year (Prime, The Novels, WFC and FOC and to some extent, even IDW's G1 ongoing).

The IDW G1 ongoing takes place in the G1 cartoon universe? 8|

A rhetorical question, natch, but I really am trying to understand this. Assuming the RPG takes place in the Aligned universe, that is. If it's more accurate to restrict it to the PCC line, then by all means let's do that!

Characters
One of the biggest problems with many fan projects is that they often completely ignore/lose the initial
premise of the official sources. For the sake of respect and in the interest of not letting this
project become an excercise is self-indulgence, I think that it would be a good idea to set some ground
rules for characters.

Essentially, this game would have two types of characters, official and fan-made.

Official:
Official characters would start off as what they are officially described as on relevant profiles and
(when applicable) other story context. In other words, turning an idealistic character emo would be out
of order, as would changing a character's allegiance simply because it would be kewl to do so.

Similarly, character stats would have to reflect their package stats as much as possible.
(Some flexibility would be necessary here.) It owuld probably also be a good idea to set
point costs/values to to accomodate official characters with as little deviation as possible.
Official characters with more impressive power-sets would be examples of high-cost characters,
while more basic characters would obviously be cheaper.
Using official characters would also give us a chance to consider mandated power-sets (such as
Leadfoot's speed and invisibility) and how they would work in the game.

Fan-made:
And, this is what most people are probably going to be looking at.

While official characters could come pre-set with stats and costs, fan-made characters would require
players and moderators to design a playable character using a set number of points. After a base-cost,
various attributes of the character could be purchases for an additional cost in points. (Every player
would have a set number of points to begin a game or campaign.) It would be possible for a player to
purchase Minicons and/or drones as well as special abilities. In theory, a player could buy 2 Minicons
and a drone if they had the right number of points. Point could also be used to upgrade a character's
stat-line or to repair damage suffered during an earlier game.

I think that a good rule of thumb is that fan-made characters should follow the principles established by
Hasbro with PCC. In general, fan characters should be new characters. These characters should not have
an info-dump's worth of history or connection to official characters. In other words, no making a new
character who is Huffer's long lost brother or the guy who in fact wronged Smoulder all those years ago.
Remember that scene in "Last Stand of the Wreckers" where Ironfist remembers meeting Prime? That is
probably going a little too far in this case.


If a player really wants to use an old (and obscure character), that would be at the moderator's discretion.
But, it should generally be avoided.


The best way to handle character death can probably be found in the original Marvel comics.

Death would basically equate to being "a really inconvenient and incapacitating injury". Generally,
it would be possible to repair/restore a damaged character. But, it would take work and effort that
may or may not be reasonable/possible at that point. (How long did Sunstreaker stay down for? Did
Windcharger ever get back up after "Dinobot Hunt" in the UK, or "Prime Target" in the US?) The US
comic would even allow for partial restoration of characters that were physically and logically destroyed.
"Rock and Rollout" established that TFs were not above making forensic/digital copies of themselves for
later use. This could be a source of cheap troops, and a way to fundamentally regenerate an otherwise
irretrievable character.

In game terms, characters would be able to spend points (earned during play) on reparing or updating
old characters. Or if things went really badly, they could usually spend points to repair/replace
destroyed character. (Points would likely represent resources available to one side or the other.)
Moderators may be allowed to veto a character coming back, or mandate how/if the character can come back.
(For example, Shockwave's death in "Legacy of Unicron" would be pretty final. At most, a replacement would be allowed, based on an assumed forensic copy.) In practical terms, replaced/regenerated characters would essentially be new characters with the same name and basic stats as the originals.

Assuming the RPG takes place in the Aligned universe, that is. If it's more accurate to restrict it to the PCC line, then by all means let's do that!

"Aligned" is essentially Hasbro's baseline continuity. Allf of their in-house content, (as opposed to their licensed content) is assumed to be set there. They have a well developed brand-bible, (parts of which have been released), that are considered to be "most canonical" even to the point of over-writing previous Hasbro content. (For example, their map of Cybertron bears no resemblence to the alternate mode of the Primus figure made back in '06.)

It is probably best to assume this is derived from and reflective of "Aligned", but not strictly a part of it. In other words, we should strive for idiomatic and thematic consistency more than strict cohesion of events, (which even "Aligned" struggles with at times).


Dom
-never mind the relative scale of the characters.....

Ok, I've got to make a few little disagreements here. We're not constructing anything official, we're creating a game based on a franchise we enjoy. The point of a game is FUN. Period. And if self indulgence isn't the definition of fun, what is? Now, I'll agree there should be some limits, like you can't just create cracked out ultimate undefeatable merge group ever (and I think the points/upgrade system would prevent that anyway), but creativity and should be encouraged in this project, not stiffled and that's going to be a certain level of self indulgence. For example: I really wish I could fly. So, I'm probably going to go for a character with a flight based alt mode. Now, trying to create a character with, say, six alt modes with some aerial, some aquatic and some ground based would be taking it too far. It almost sounds like you're trying to say "We're not doing fanfic here" but, we ARE doing fanfic. We're fans creating fictional characters to take place in a story of our creation for our own amusement that Hasbro has had no say in. By definition, it's fanfic. And there is going to be a self indulgent nature to it. But, we're not the tfwiki so I think we have the maturity to keep the self indulgence from reaching stupid levels like the afforementioned ultimate merge group with six alt modes each. I also have to disagree with the "no interaction with official characters" bit. And I'm going to cite the LSoTW scene as my example. What's wrong with having met Prime? He didn't try to act like he was all that importan to Prime or that Prime even remembered meeting him. I think this is again where common sense is going to have to prevail. It's certainly more creative to come up with bios that don't revolve around existing characters, but the existing ones are prominent characters and we'd have to assume that they have enough of an impact in their universe that they would wind up affecting the lives of bots they'd never met.

I'd also hate for this to turn into Starfleet Lawyers where there's going to be a lot of rule mongering. I mean, yes, rules should be established and obeyed as much as possible but it shouldn't interfere with having fun. That's the ultimate goal here: Fun.

As for death, I think we could assum "stasis lock" unless the death is such that there would be no chance of repair (like with disintigration or disolved in acid, eaten by nanites or scraplets or anything that results in the nonexistence of the body).

We would also have to establish the cost system of points for what repairs cost what, what weapons cost, what upgrades cost, etc. WFC does a pretty good job of this and I think we could use it as a base, but the acquisition of points would have to be different (points only acrue in game when enemies are killed).

Shockwave
-went on way more of a rant than intended.

I dunno, do Dom's rules preclude a flight-based altmode? I admit I skimmed 'em.