Jump to content

Building a Transformer


phoenix240

Recommended Posts

Posting this for a friend

 

 

 

The classic "Robot in disguise" sort of Transformer built for use as a Player Character or fully fleshed out NPC. The options seem to be:

1. Shapeshifting brought to 0 Endurance and Persistent with additional abilities (most Movement) as appropriate to their vehicular form) Linked to the Shapeshift

2. Full on Multiform (probably the most complicated but "accurate" method).

3. Limited additional abilities (Running, Flight, whatever reflects the vehicular form) with the limitations reflecting the changed shape (like No Fine Manipulation)

Are there other options I've missed? Which of the above you would employ as a player?

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiform might work. One form is the vehicle form; use the vehicles rules to build it (or just grab a stock vehicle from a supplement) and throw in some INT and EGO if necessary. The other form would be the giant robot form and could be built as an automaton with a few levels of Growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said on rpg.net, if we're talking about TV and especially movie transformers, the "alternate form" is a pretty minor special effect, especially if transformation is either instant (movies) or not part of the normal time frame (like the TV cut scenes). Simulating all the minor peculiarities of the vehicle form is rarely worth it, we're not talking about really dualistic creatures like werewolves here. Heck, not even power suit heroes, who tend to be slightly more squishy out of armor.

 

Most of the time it's a disguise, possibly with a bit of extra movement. Do we really have to simulate the fact that you can't hold on to some McGuffin in vehicle form, that you might get a speeding ticket or have some kind of malfunction chance if your alternate shape is a GM car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak about the cartoon (I've never seen it), but in the movies, people ride inside Bumblebee's vehicle form. Having a vehicle form that is built as an actual vehicle gives you all aspects/mechanics, both benefits and drawbacks, of being a vehicle. You don't have to approximate it. In the case of Bumblebee, just take the Chevrolet Camaro from the Hero System Vehicle Sourcebook and use it as the secondary form. Done and done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you wanted to get really detailed about the differences (probably even more detailed that the cartoons/movie), you could go with Multiform.  Otherwise I'd suggest Shapeshift.  I would not go with just a simple alternate identity (i.e. Only in Heroic Identity without a power like Shapeshift) as suggested in the other thread, because they truly are meant to be masquerading as everyday objects (as proven by the tagline, "robots in disguise," even!). This has distinct benefits above and beyond what a simple change in outfit would give you.  For example, when someone simply puts on a cape and a mask, they very much look like someone wearing a disguise/costume, which is normally fine for a superhero or masked vigilante.  If a player modeled a Transformer using a simple alternate identity, as GM I would personally rule that people don't think there's an ordinary car rolling down the street: they easily recognize it as something quite abnormal even if they don't necessarily know it is a Transformer, or which Transformer it is.

 

Now it might be possible to use the Disguise skill in place of Shapeshift, but in that case I'd probably introduce some complications like requiring a roll each time, having some complimentary knowledge skills, being less effective the more someone studied your appearance (seeing you, hearing you, touching you, popping the hood, and driving you? it's going to require one HELL of a Disguse roll to continue the deception!).  I'd suggest the Disguise skill more for any Transformer that might have Shapeshift with a variable set of target shapes, so they could successfully mimic different kinds of vehicle or even particular unique vehicles (e.g. Air Force One rather than just a generic plane of similar model).  I don't really recall that sort of story element in the cartoons, but it would be an interesting thing to throw into a game....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would even go so far as to say that a Transformer in vehicle form isn't just "disguised" as a vehicle, it is a vehicle. That's why the so-called disguise is so effective.

 

The nice thing about Multiform is that you also have the option of adding in-between forms, for times when you want to be half-truck/half-robot, like when you need to keep your passengers inside a relatively safe cockpit-like enclosure while fighting with arm weapons or whatever. Designing each form with a distinct character write-up gives you the freedom and flexibility to design it exactly as it needs to be, rather than trying to force the Shapeshift mechanics into handling the myriad things/properties a vehicle/robot hybrid can do/has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't just normal vehicles.  They are far tougher than their counterparts.  They are still self-aware.  They drive / pilot / control themselves.  They have weapons built into their forms.  Bumblebee can still shoot a laser at a Decepticon even if he's in car mode.  They can also do things like drive their car modes underwater.

 

I'd build it as a shapeshift, one form, sight (they clearly look different), sound (they sound like vehicles), and radio (on radar they look like vehicles).  Touch isn't needed, because they still feel like metal.

 

There was an episode of the cartoon where someone opened up the hood of one of the Autobots (I think it was Jazz).  Where the engine was supposed to be there was all this crazy electronic gear.  So a Disguise roll might be all you really need.  Or the shapeshift might have a limitation on it instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Tougher = more DEF. For self-awareness, just give it the character's INT. Weapons on vehicles are easy enough...the vehicle rules provide for such things. Adding amphibious operation is no different than doing the same thing for, say, a James Bond car.

 

I think you may be looking for problems where there really are none, whereas Shapshift glosses over far too many things to cover convincing vehicle operations IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't function as a vehicle.  They still take stun.  They can still talk.  They use combat maneuvers, including, in some cases, grab.  They don't lose abilities when they take Body.  They aren't "vehicles" in the Hero sense.  Besides, then how would you handle someone like Soundwave who changes into a tape player?  They don't have tape player vehicles.

 

Shapeshift can let me be anything from a Betamax VCR to a pink dragon.  I think it can handle a Camaro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, One of the Vehicle Books (I think TUV) actually has a multi-form mecha/vehicle (more of a Robotech/Macross thing than a Transformer, since neither form is sentient. It uses Multi-form.

 

I think the real question to ask (other than, "is this more complexity than my campaign really needs to care about?") is, "are transformers' vehicle mode significantly different from their robot modes, or is it more of a special effect? That changes from series to series and medium to medium. I think you can probably look at it this way--if the robots that turn into jet fighters can also fly in robot form (as they can in the original cartoon), then you probably can get away with shapeshift (and have "only in  certain forms" limitation for the exceptions, like dinobots being nearly invincible in dino form, but not having lasers).

 

I find it amusing that the rules for playing a robotic alien from Cybertron, playing a sentient robot, or playing a sentient computer controlling a non-sentient robot have not only different point costs, but actual different rules (Sentience gives robots stun scores, wtf?). Something tells me I'd love to see that addressed if 7th Edition ever comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I find it amusing that the rules for playing a robotic alien from Cybertron, playing a sentient robot, or playing a sentient computer controlling a non-sentient robot have not only different point costs, but actual different rules (Sentience gives robots stun scores, wtf?). Something tells me I'd love to see that addressed if 7th Edition ever comes out.

 

Where do you get the impression that sentience gives a robot the STUN characteristic?

 

It is possible to play a sentient being with Takes No STUN, and just as possible to build an automaton that has STUN and can be stunned or knocked out.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Takes No STUN, Only in Palindromedary ID

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't function as a vehicle. They still take stun. They can still talk. They use combat maneuvers, including, in some cases, grab. They don't lose abilities when they take Body. They aren't "vehicles" in the Hero sense. Besides, then how would you handle someone like Soundwave who changes into a tape player? They don't have tape player vehicles.

 

Shapeshift can let me be anything from a Betamax VCR to a pink dragon. I think it can handle a Camaro.

I agree. Shape shift linked powers would be the best. Really how different in Hero terms are the two forms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you get the impression that sentience gives a robot the STUN characteristic?

<?>

 

From this thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/90307-logic-of-takes-no-stun/), in which you participated. As Stated by Scott Baker, "I think the problem here is one of GM option. Both 6E1 and CC  state that these powers can normally only be purchased by Automatons, which are controlled by another character. As a GM, I can't think of a situation over the last 3+ decades where I would have let a PC run such a character (i.e., being controlled by another character as the automaton rules--including the additional information in 6E2--indicate)." Now, he could have been wrong about it (I haven't gone back and checked that language), and sentience might be the wrong term.

 

Either way, if a giant robot has a computer brain, it can be considered a character and be built using those points, needing to take the Takes No Stun Power. However, if they are considered a computer character controlling a separate vehicle body, they have no stun score without taking that power, but having to pay for their arms and normal senses, and that is the juxtaposition I was trying to highlight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<?>

 

From this thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/90307-logic-of-takes-no-stun/), in which you participated. As Stated by Scott Baker, "I think the problem here is one of GM option. Both 6E1 and CC  state that these powers can normally only be purchased by Automatons, which are controlled by another character. As a GM, I can't think of a situation over the last 3+ decades where I would have let a PC run such a character (i.e., being controlled by another character as the automaton rules--including the additional information in 6E2--indicate)." Now, he could have been wrong about it (I haven't gone back and checked that language), and sentience might be the wrong term.

 

Either way, if a giant robot has a computer brain, it can be considered a character and be built using those points, needing to take the Takes No Stun Power. However, if they are considered a computer character controlling a separate vehicle body, they have no stun score without taking that power, but having to pay for their arms and normal senses, and that is the juxtaposition I was trying to highlight.  

 

Okay, I think I see what you mean there - I can build a character that is a giant robot, give it the Takes No Stun Power, but it has EGO and is self willed etc. I can also build an AI character associated with a Vehicle, and the Vehicle has to buy Extra Limbs and either the Vehicle or the AI needs to buy Senses. I'm not sure though what it is you think needs to be "addressed" there. You think there should be only one possible Template?

 

But I think it needs repeating that an Automaton can NOT take any Automaton powers, leaving it with no EGO, controlled by another character, but able to be knocked out. And a character that takes an Automaton power does not thereby become an Automaton and still has an EGO and is self-willed.

 

I can think of at least one character I have posted that was not an Automaton but had Takes no Stun, and at least one that was an Automaton and didn't.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I have no idea how many palindromedary taglines I have posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm not sure that anything does need to be addessed, since we've kind of decided by consensus that shapeshifting is a better solution than multi-forming. Even if not, I was more pointing out the oddness more than anything.

 

But I think it needs repeating that an Automaton can NOT take any Automaton powers, leaving it with no EGO, controlled by another character, but able to be knocked out. And a character that takes an Automaton power does not thereby become an Automaton and still has an EGO and is self-willed.

 

As to this, why is it important that a completely controlled, egoless character not be able to be knocked out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm not sure that anything does need to be addessed, since we've kind of decided by consensus that shapeshifting is a better solution than multi-forming. Even if not, I was more pointing out the oddness more than anything.

 

 

As to this, why is it important that a completely controlled, egoless character not be able to be knocked out?

I don't necessarily think it's important that an egoless character not be able to be knocked out.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I think it's important that I have a palindromedary tagline in every post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...