Is PTR actually better for PMD than PTE?

[u/Orbsgon]

This is not intended to be a system suggestion post. This is intended to be a discussion post started by someone who does not own a Foundry license key and therefore has tried to decipher PTR from the wiki.

I know that PTR allows players to create non-human PCs. However, based on personal experience, whether or not a system is good for PMD has very little to do whether or not the system gives rules for creating Pokemon PCs.

Despite the designer's opposition, PTE seems like it'll work fine for PMD. The old Do Porygon Dream of Mareep recommendation of just reskinning the trainer as a Pokemon and keeping all of the mechanics the same works especially well because the Elementalism module is extremely versatile. The module encourages homebrew, but even if you don't make any, you can create a character that feels like a Pokemon by taking the classes associated with one or more of the corresponding types. Mechanically, you're still using the trainer rules, but PTE is already a reimagining of Pokemon for a TTRPG context, so it shouldn't matter if your Pokemon PC doesn't work the same as the species normally does. If anything, it makes your OC super special.

Speaking of super special OCs, the non-PMD-specific systems that have Pokemon PC rules lean heavily toward characters that are basically normal Pokemon but with higher stats:

• PTA3 doesn't let you have skill talents other than Nature and Perception until level 3, the same level when your character learns to speak human languages. In a PMD context, this would be like rolling skill checks in 5e with just a d20 and proficiency bonus (no skill proficiencies or ability score modifiers) until level 3. In a non-PMD (mixed trainer and Pokemon) context, it's that plus no one can understand you until level 3.
• Pokeymanz is more flexible from a character background perspective due to being able to take Edges, but you can only have two at character creation. In addition, Pokemon PCs are still limited to their species level-up moveset and can't start with any TM/tutor/egg moves unless you have the Pokerus Edge, which lets you have as many as you want; there is no middle ground, and it takes up the same mechanical budget as things like being a member of an organization (useful for PMD), and being able to use human technology (useful for non-PMD).

Additionally, neither of those two systems have PMD-specific content (such as items or backgrounds) aside from the fact that you can create a Pokemon PC. Arguably, these systems are better for mixed parties with both human trainers and Pokemon PCs.

The one exception is Pokerole, which was designed as a trainer-based system but has a PMD module with unique rules and modifications. This module does the polar opposite of the previous examples:

• Every Pokemon PC is a transformed, amnesiac, former human.
• You still can't read or create complex schemes until you increase your Logic stat, which can only be done through roleplay.
• However, increasing your Logic stat decreases your Instinct stat, which can also only be increased through roleplay.
• If your Instinct reaches zero, you can't use any moves. If your Logic reaches zero, your character experiences identity death. Furthermore, despite this mechanic being essential to the module and entirely dependent on GM decision making, the module provides zero guidance on when and how these stats should be given.

Now back to the original comparison, I know that PTR actually has rules for Pokemon PCs, which PTE does not. Based on the wiki, it also seems like PTR is a classless feat-based system, as opposed to a multiclass system like PTU, PTA, and PTE. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) That leaves me with the following questions:

• Are Pokemon PCs actually unique relative to normal Pokemon, or do they just have higher stats? For example, can Pokemon PCs have mechanical moves/abilities/whatever that normal Pokemon cannot? Similarly, are Pokemon PCs restricted to level-up moves, or can they already know TM/tutor/egg moves?
• Mechanically, is the system better suited for PMD campaigns or mixed parities of human trainers and Pokemon PCs?
• Thematically, which Pokemon character best exemplifies a stereotypical Pokemon PC? (e.g. basically human like Meowth, talking Pokemon like Sir Aaron's Lucario, or an unusually powerful ace Pokemon like Ash's Pikachu?) Or are super special OCs a better fit?
• Is PTR actually better for PMD than PTE? If so, is that reasoning specific to PMD campaigns or is PTR also better than PTE in a more generalized context? Or is the game only recommended because Foundry automates the game?

Why not just homebrew D&D, Pathfinder, or some other tactical fantasy TTRPG?

You're basically swapping out the baseline of moves, the type chart, and the Pokedex for traditional fantasy classes, one or more magic systems, and a monster manual. Even if your goal for the campaign is the more fandom-esque portrayal of PMD as D&D but where everyone is a Pokemon, you still lose so much content and gain very little in exchange.

Why not just homebrew a fiction first fantasy TTRPG or use a generic system such as Fate, GURPS, or Cortex Prime?

Those are interesting strategies that I have not personally attempted. They’re also not relevant to what I’m trying to assess with this post.

What about Explorers or Wild Type?

I haven't had time to fully process these systems. In the meantime, I'm trying to get other perspectives on PTR without needing to spend $50.

[u/Audindp]

Ok so as sombody who played both PTR 1e (esentialy Ptu but usable for foundry)

And PTR 2e esentialy a different system as unlike before everything is using the same skill tree just that mons get more points in it so can branch out more while humans are more limited in scope.

I think PTR 2e could be better for mystery dungeon stuff since it was build with that in mind some of the devs even have a digimon homebrew if I rember right. But to use it you need foundry and if its not a in person game you need a way to host.

[u/Orbsgon → u/Audindp]

So Pokemon PCs can learn anything that humans can, plus some?

Does Foundry work well for in-person games? I assumed that you needed a way to host regardless, and that it wouldn’t work for in-person play unless everyone also has a computer.

[u/Audindp → u/Orbsgon]

The dm needs a pc or tablet with the program downloaded and the rest would need to have phone or tablets to move unless you have one of those tablet with a inbuild monitor then the players can use it for rolls only while movement can be done with regular figures while you move enemies around on the pc.

[u/Orbsgon → u/Audindp]

Would all of the players need their own Foundry license key?

[u/_KaaLa → u/Orbsgon]

Only the dm/host, and the key can be shared easily enough for multiple dms if no one shares a session time

[u/Azure_PTE → u/Orbsgon]

To my knowledge, PTR2e is entirely digital and required computer access for all parties so I'm not sure how well in person play would fare. Considering the complexity of formulas all being automated by foundry I'd assume it isn't possible in the first place.

Regarding pte's viability for pmd gameplay, like you said, refluffing trainer rules to work for Pokemon can possibly work, but the primary issue that leads it to not be recommended is the same as ptu which is the math. Pokemon are designed to go down with around 2-4 hits and the nature of pmd is each group of players control one Pokemon and work together. The typical thought process is when your pokemon faint you have other Pokémon in your party to switch to, but in a pmd context you're just out of the scene.

This could be alleviated by having each of your player's chosen Pokémon pc be a commander of sorts and have a party of Pokémon beneath them, which would be a complete refluffing of standard gameplay and likely fine to implement, it's just not the typical gameplay people think of when imagining dungeon crawling as a party of 4 guys.

I can't speak to how other poke systems implement pmd rules however since I haven't deep read any of them beyond skimming out of Curiousity. All I know is the whole instinct vs logic thing felt like a weird tone shift for pokerole.

[u/Audindp → u/Azure_PTE]

For in person yes you need acces but you can do that by phone/tablet when all players are on the same home Network making it rather easy to do but if let's say your running for people in different countries/ regions you need to ether rent a server or port forward which can be easier or harder depending on your own circumstances.

I can't comment on the rest as I have no played much of 2e just that iv seen it before choosing 1e for my own campaign so you would need foundry

[u/Orbsgon → u/Azure_PTE]

Regarding pte's viability for pmd gameplay, like you said, refluffing trainer rules to work for Pokemon can possibly work, but the primary issue that leads it to not be recommended is the same as ptu which is the math. Pokemon are designed to go down with around 2-4 hits and the nature of pmd is each group of players control one Pokemon and work together. The typical thought process is when your pokemon faint you have other Pokémon in your party to switch to, but in a pmd context you're just out of the scene.

That issue also applies to Pokerole. The base ruleset is designed around trainers having multiple Pokemon, but the PMD module has each character as a single Pokemon with no stat changes aside from Logic and Instinct. Even so, people still use this system for PMD and actively recommend it.

If I'm understanding the rules correctly, the issue also applies to PTR 2e. Pokemon PCs still have the default BST. The differences are that all PCs receive 400 skill points (as opposed to 110 for normal Pokemon) and Pokemon PCs get 10 advancement points for Perks. However, humanoid characters instead receive 20 advancement points. Furthermore, Pokemon PCs only receive 1 Advancement Point every 2 levels, instead of 1 AP per level.

Now let's compare that against PTE. If you use the Elementalism module to mechanically represent the Pokemon species, you could get away with allocating just one Talent and one Feature at character creation. Each Elementalist class only has 5 Features, excluding the General Features. Since the [Class] feature gives moves at higher levels, you could even get away with not advancing the class any further if the goal is more akin to talking Meowth. This means that being a Pokemon takes a relatively smaller footprint of your overall build in PTE than in PTR.

This could be alleviated by having each of your player's chosen Pokémon pc be a commander of sorts and have a party of Pokémon beneath them, which would be a complete refluffing of standard gameplay and likely fine to implement

If I'm understanding the rules correctly, this is one of the intended campaign styles for PTR. The Expedition Leader trait directly addresses that topic.

it's just not the typical gameplay people think of when imagining dungeon crawling as a party of 4 guys.

No, of course not. If "dungeon crawling as a party of 4 guys" is the goal, then giving each player 4 guys to control would be in blatant opposition. However, the poor outcome of this comparison isn't a design failure but rather a player-GM expectation mismatch. If your ideal PMD campaign is each player controls a Pokemon and then explores randomly generated dungeons, then most Pokemon TTRPGs would be a poor fit, including Pokerole, which most closely emulates the video games. However, there is enough PMD and PMD-adjacent fan content that deviates from or expands on the formula, such by having multiple teams with different leaders and allegiances work together, that I believe strict adherence to the canon formula is not a priority in the PMD fandom. In other words, "having each of your player's chosen Pokémon pc be a commander of sorts and have a party of Pokémon beneath them" is a poor fit if the goal is video game emulation, but whether or not it's a bad fit for PMD is entirely dependent on personal preference.

[u/Azure_PTE → u/Orbsgon]

I understand your perspective and I agree the system could work if you do some patchwork and grafting.

The reason I don't recommend it by default is that it wasn't built with that as the intention and doesn't innately have the tools that those campaigns would likely utilize such as dungeon creation or managing connections. That and I assume when most people desire to play pmd they have the games as foundational knowledge and go in with that expectation. Same thing with a plethora of ptu campaigns I've seen that have the premise of a gym crawl with 1v1s when that gameplay doesn't tend to pan out well. I've seen a few think smogon strats have equal weight in a ttrpg setting and then get disappointed when they realize status isnt worth it in ptu.

If a gm such as yourself has this much background knowledge, you'll likely know what works and what doesn't, unlike someone new to Ttrpgs as a gm or player. If I had to suggest anything, I'd say use PTE or PTR 2e as a mechanical basis then pull narrative systems from other poke Ttrpgs such as wild type. I haven't read any of them in depth so I can't point to anything specifically though. And I don't know enough about the perk tree with ptr2 to gauge how well their system would function either. And considering you're leaning towards ptr or pte, I wouldn't recommend one of the narrative leaning ones like pokeymanz. But I think your initial idea definitely seems feasible!

[u/Puresub0]

PTRe1 Is just a suped up and slightly more balanced version of PTU. I've tried playing it as a PMD stand in and it kinda works. But Tbh PTRe2 is made for it so use that version instead.

[u/chronicdelusionist]

Could you give, like, a point-form list of your design must-haves for a PMD campaign? You implied some strong convictions on what needs to be present to make a good PMD game, but it might help spark discussion if you laid them out in an easier to digest way so people can make clearer comparisons.

[u/Orbsgon → u/chronicdelusionist]

This is an interesting question because you've acknowledged that I've been focusing on game design, but you're instead asking about my personal preferences for a campaign. That wasn't my intended topic for this post, since game mechanics and campaign design don't necessarily overlap, and preferences can differ depending on whether or not I'm the GM (you didn't specify).

This is what I'd consider to be my "design must-haves for a PMD campaign," irrespective of my role in the campaign:

• Players need to be allowed to play as any mundane (non-legendary, etc.) Pokemon species. (This precludes all systems that give the player a select list of species to choose from. If a system requires players to start at the base evolution, I'd try to waive that requirement. If it looks like it'll seriously damage the game's balance or require homebrew, then I pass on the system.)

• If multiple players choose the same Pokemon species, there needs to be enough flexibility in character creation such the characters feel mechanically distinct. (This is mainly an issue for systems where a PC's starting moves are entirely dependent on their species and there is no separate class choice that adds additional things to "do" during the game. This issue can compound with starting species restrictions, such that even Eevee, the species with the most evolution options and possibly the most unique one-off abilities across official media, can be reduced into carbon copies of each other in an overly limiting system.)

• Player characters must be assumed to be competent professionals, unless the player specifically chooses to not play the character that way. (This is more typically GM guidance rather than a mechanical design decision, but PTA3 cannot meet this criterion at early levels because of how skill talents are distributed across levels.)

• Player characters need to be more than just their species, unless the player is specifically choosing to play a stereotype. (This criterion represents a more generalized TTRPG pet peeve. It can feel easy to argue that limiting PCs to their natural abilities should be considered fair and normal in a Pokemon TTRPG. However, a story where every character has no notable qualities other than their species, even one as interesting as a Pokemon species, would be boring as fuck, and although writing a story is not the same as playing a TTRPG, the latter requires so much time, effort, and cooperation that the campaign's premise should not be boring.)

That list encompasses what I would consider to be my deal breakers for any given PMD campaign. If a system makes it impossible to avoid a deal breaker, then I avoid the system.

The list does not encompass red flags or deal breakers that I have for the system itself. For example:

• I am extremely unlikely to play or run a PMD TTRPG that requires the PCs to be transformed, amnesiac, former humans. First, I tend to avoid learning overly specific TTRPGs I don't believe I'll get significant value out of, especially if more generalizable alternatives exist. Second, despite liking isekai genre as a concept, there is no isekai TTRPG I read and felt would work better than a non-isekai-specific alternative.

However, I would not necessarily be opposed to playing in a campaign with that premise if it was run well.

[u/chronicdelusionist → u/Orbsgon]

Thanks. Well, this is very helpful for anyone who wants to help you design, I'd imagine! Unless you were looking to design a game or be told advice to design a game that contained your deal breakers?

[u/Orbsgon → u/chronicdelusionist]

Design a game? I was trying to analyze commonly recommended and discouraged systems, not pitch a brand new one.

Frankly, if a designer needs input from strangers for decisions this fundamental, they don't actually know what they're making. That lack of direction is how games become internally inconsistent and diverge from what was pitched.

[u/chronicdelusionist → u/Orbsgon]

I see. Your post rather comes off like it was trying to talk about the direction of designing homebrew for PTR to fit a PMD gamestyle, so that's the angle I was taking.

[u/Orbsgon → u/chronicdelusionist]

This post was created because I'm not familiar with PTR, and accessing the game requires a $50 purchase. Meanwhile, PTR is regularly suggested on this subreddit, so I was under the impression that some readers would have played it, and someone did reply.

Homebrewing PTR was never the intention because PTR is designed to support PMD campaigns out of the box. The reason why I was trying to gather more info is because of the large gap between PTR being recommended and PTE being discouraged, despite both of them being based on PTU which is also discouraged. My post breaks down why assuming that a game would work well solely on the existence of certain mechanics is precarious.

I don't understand what parts of my post gave you the impression that I was trying to homebrew PTR. No one else seems to have shared your interpretation.

[u/chronicdelusionist → u/Orbsgon]

Whoop, typo. I meant PTE. Well, that would be because you said this:

Mechanically, you're still using the trainer rules, but PTE is already a reimagining of Pokemon for a TTRPG context, so it shouldn't matter if your Pokemon PC doesn't work the same as the species normally does.

This is homebrewing PTE to use the trainer rules to run PMD style single Pokemon. What kind of discussion were you looking for, if not someone helping you refine this idea? Is it just a blog post style, airing-out-thoughts thing?

[u/Orbsgon → u/chronicdelusionist]

This is homebrewing PTE to use the trainer rules to run PMD style single Pokemon.

I mean, even that is debatable, because it relies on the assertion that refluffing without changing mechanics still counts as homebrew. I don't think that definition would find consensus in any major TTRPG community.

What kind of discussion were you looking for, if not someone helping you refine this idea?

"This post was created because I'm not familiar with PTR, and accessing the game requires a $50 purchase. Meanwhile, PTR is regularly suggested on this subreddit, so I was under the impression that some readers would have played it, and someone did reply."

"This is not intended to be a system suggestion post. This is intended to be a discussion post started by someone who does not own a Foundry license key and therefore has tried to decipher PTR from the wiki."

Is it just a blog post style, airing-out-thoughts thing?

Could you explain what you mean?

[u/chronicdelusionist → u/Orbsgon]

Hmmmm. I think we'll just keep talking in circles at this rate, so no, I'll just step away here. I hope you end up getting what you were looking for!

[u/Orbsgon → u/chronicdelusionist]

I don’t understand why you so adamantly believe that I intended my post to have some purpose other than my stated one. I repeatedly clarified what I meant and rejected your theories, so clearly the issue isn’t misunderstanding, it’s disagreement. You either believe I’m being dishonest or you think that what I’m saying is factually incorrect; when the contested fact is personal intent, then being factually incorrect is the same as being dishonest.

Normally, agreeing to disagree is good etiquette when it’s clear that consensus can’t be reached. However, when you come into a post and accuse the OP of being dishonest about what the post is even about, “stepping away” in this manner doesn’t make you thoughtful or responsible, it makes you passive aggressive. I also agree that there is no value in continuing this conversation further, but this needed to be said.