PDA

View Full Version : Game Based off of Pokemon Mechanics: Good idea or not?



Scowling Dragon
2014-05-26, 11:06 AM
I was just thinking, would translating Pokemon mechanics to paper result in a better experience for RPG-ing?

Pokemon has very rich deep and complex mechanics that encourage a variety of game styless and switching strategy constantly.

And unlike games that depend on player control, pokemon doesn't take into account movement or some level of mechanics that could not be translated to paper.

Does that sound interesting? And does somebody see any obvious flaws?

Mr. Mask
2014-05-26, 11:09 AM
Short answer: Probably not, depending on what parts you're thinking of converting.

Pokemon was designed with a math-crunching computer in mind, so many of its mechanics are complex for P&P. That isn't to say you couldn't convert or simplify its mechanics for use in tabletop.

banthesun
2014-05-26, 11:31 AM
Just as a note, there's already two pretty excellent pokemon tabletop game on the internet, Pokemon Tabletop Adventures, and Pokemon Tabletop United (they share a common origin). They both use some of the games mechanics, and have a bunch of tabletop specific mechanics, so I'd recommend you check them out (I prefer PTU, but there really isn't that much difference).

Anxe
2014-05-26, 12:22 PM
Just the usual flaw I see in turning a video game into a pen and paper game. Why not just play Pokemon with your friends? And if you want to add a storyline, why not just do that and use your DS to arbitrate combat?

Aside from that, yeah its a cool system. A few stats that have known interactions and the elemental system is great. Other problems would be finding a way to work around the computer requirement and giving choices upon leveling up.

Scowling Dragon
2014-05-26, 01:41 PM
Thing is: Its NOT that complicated.

I know the actual damage calculation, and whilst its no elementary school homework, its no "SUPERCOMPUTOR LEVEL CHALLENGE!"

By simplifying stats (Dividing them by 5 would suffice), and creating a simulator of from 85%-100% (Or just find a way to do without it), its quite simple. The mechanics are essentially Attack/ Defence and the result is multiplied by the base power of the attack and then the damage is 85-100% in power.

Strip some stuff down, simplify the numbers involved, replace the number generator with a Die, possibly remove division/ Multiplication and add Addition/Subtraction and you're all set!

The thing is not "An RPG" about pokemon, but the mechanics BEHIND pokemon for a lets say ADVENTURE game.

vasharanpaladin
2014-05-26, 01:52 PM
Oh, look, it's already done for you. (http://s4.zetaboards.com/Pokemon_Tabletop/forum/3848682/1/)

Scowling Dragon
2014-05-26, 02:14 PM
Thanks! Il check it out to see if its what I wanted. The very least It could give a framework for the future.

erikun
2014-05-26, 02:23 PM
I'd want to ask what you mean by "Pokemon mechanics" exactly.

Are you talking about the math? Becauase that sound pretty terrible. Most RPGs tend to calculate a base damage formula and then multiply the result by around 90%-110% for a variable amount of damage. I've seen the Pokemon damage calculator, and even simplified it requires multiplying several values (even before the random factor) and then dividing by defense. That isn't simple, especially when trying to work with multiple attacks a round.

But the biggest problem is that it is ultimately rather pointless. The strategy behind Pokemon - the game styles and switching strategy, you say - depends entirely on the format of Pokemon. It's in being familiar with the movepool of a particular pokemon and being able to switch in counters and plan for counters. But all that flies out the window the first time a PC gets into trouble and pulls out all their pokemon at once (http://www.awkwardzombie.com/index.php?page=0&comic=022414). Or carries around a bunch of extras in their backpack. Or have someone tackle the Team Rocket member so that they can't give commands to their pokemon.

And ultimately, if you want to play an involved game of Pokemon strategy, why not use one of the several battle simulators found online?

Scowling Dragon
2014-05-26, 04:06 PM
You don't get what Im saying:

Not using a pokemon system to play pokemon, but using the system to play SOMETHING ELSE.

Like where the players play adventurers but are built like Pokemon. Fighters are Tanky like Fortress, we got fast but frail Rogues like weavile, Wizards are built like Sableye. Instead of switching out its taking a moment to catch your breath as too leave yourself very vulnerable but gain some benifits. And so an ally usualy must cover for you at the moment or such.

Mechanics that often encourage changing around because of mismatching elemental types, or wrong attack types.

Anxe
2014-05-26, 05:31 PM
If there isn't switching involved then I don't see the difference between this idea and any other RPG (aside from action arbitration). The switching element won't work if each player has one PC, because they'll get bored when they aren't switched in.

It could function as a DM and only one player game though. To me the "cover weaknesses of my buddy" sounds a lot like 4E as I've played it. There's stuff you could get in your system that aren't in 4E, but if I were doing this I'd rather come up with a homebrew for 4E than an entirely new system.

Songtress
2014-05-26, 07:08 PM
As others have said if you want pokemon mechanics , Pokemon Tabletop United, has it down.

I've been looking at PTU to play a 'animal companion game', if that's what your thinking..

neonchameleon
2014-05-26, 08:32 PM
Why do you want to do this?

And not in my opinion. System Mastery in an RPG should be its own reward. Going into the mechanics and memorising rafts of abilities and counters is in conflict with immersion and roleplaying. They are two very different activities that require fairly different mindsets, and the people who do both at once are going to be ... rare. This isn't to say it's impossible, just that it's very very niche.

Kid Jake
2014-05-26, 09:52 PM
Or have someone tackle the Team Rocket member so that they can't give commands to their pokemon.


I actually had players do this the only time I ever tried to run a Pokémon adventure. One of them suckerpunched the opposing trainer and the other said 'Screw Pokemon' whipped out a boot knife and tackled the opponent's Mankee himself. They mugged the trainer and turned his Mankee into a decorative vest.

Grod_The_Giant
2014-05-27, 10:39 PM
I actually had players do this the only time I ever tried to run a Pokémon adventure. One of them suckerpunched the opposing trainer and the other said 'Screw Pokemon' whipped out a boot knife and tackled the opponent's Mankee himself. They mugged the trainer and turned his Mankee into a decorative vest.
There is, perhaps, a certain mindset necessary to play a pokemon game. This isn't it.

Spore
2014-05-28, 01:01 AM
Not using a pokemon system to play pokemon, but using the system to play SOMETHING ELSE.

Like where the players play adventurers but are built like Pokemon. Fighters are Tanky like Fortress, we got fast but frail Rogues like weavile, Wizards are built like Sableye. .

I'll go ahead and say Pokemon is a terrible gaming system for RPGs. Mostly only extremely focussed builds make sense and pitting two stallers against each other would suck out the fun of the game pretty quickly. Then no or the tiniest bit of chance is involved. Or the buid revolves heavily about chances (Paraflinching Togekiss). It's just not fun.

The online battles have a certain quality about pressuring, stalling or keeping your momentum and switch advantage. But try this with several people all playing a different tactic. That's why rotation or triple battles never took off. That's why double battles are barely acceptable.


There is, perhaps, a certain mindset necessary to play a pokemon game. This isn't it.

The pokemon world only makes sense if you see pokemon as the ultimate tool, weapon and companion. Otherwise you always will have problems with immersion. So yes, even a Caterpie should be able to prevent its trainer from being stabbed. That's the main reason why villains in the game flee if they are defeated in a pokemon battle. They know they can't shoot the kid because still conscious magical creatures protect it.

Oh and they only stop battles before killing pokemon with attacks because of the rating. I recall that pokemon regularly die in the mangas.

Tengu_temp
2014-05-28, 01:56 AM
This is a bad idea, because a big part of what makes Pokemon mechanics interesting is the whole raising aspect, and swapping pokemans in battle. When you're limited to one pokemon-equivalent (your character), it gets boring really fast, and it will be frustrating that you just can't arbitrarily do anything to some enemies no matter how hard you try. Also, even simplified, the rules of Pokemon have too much math for a tabletop RPG, so the game will be super-slow.

neonchameleon
2014-05-28, 05:37 AM
This is a bad idea, because a big part of what makes Pokemon mechanics interesting is the whole raising aspect, and swapping pokemans in battle. When you're limited to one pokemon-equivalent (your character), it gets boring really fast, and it will be frustrating that you just can't arbitrarily do anything to some enemies no matter how hard you try.

Give Dogs in the Vineyard a look. It keeps the raising aspect and swapping between approaches (words, melee (either fists or weapons), guns) although loses the tactics in favour of emotional engagement and chicken. It should also have been on the FRESH games list Scowling Dragon asked for...

The Dark Fiddler
2014-05-28, 09:23 AM
Another issue with using the Pokemon game mechanics that I don't think anybody's mentioned is the fact that most Pokemon battles go for an attack or two before one of the combatants is knocked out. Plenty end in a single hit. That... doesn't sound fun, to be honest.

I3igAl
2014-05-28, 10:33 AM
I actually had players do this the only time I ever tried to run a Pokémon adventure. One of them suckerpunched the opposing trainer and the other said 'Screw Pokemon' whipped out a boot knife and tackled the opponent's Mankee himself. They mugged the trainer and turned his Mankee into a decorative vest.

Mankey would kick the **** out of a guy with a knife. Pokemon can be really powerful.


For the OP: I wouldn't use game mechanics and instead try to emulate the fights from the Anime. I would use some Power Based game like HERO System or BESM and create unique Power Sets, emulating their attacks as Powers.

There should also be possibillities to train ones Pokemon índividually, e.g. have it lift weight to increase it's Strenght, run and tumble to make it faster and more agile etc.

geonova
2014-05-28, 01:21 PM
Mankey would kick the **** out of a guy with a knife. Pokemon can be really powerful.

not if the the guy with the knife is a martial artist of approximately the same level as the mankey

Tengu_temp
2014-05-28, 02:23 PM
Give Dogs in the Vineyard a look. It keeps the raising aspect and swapping between approaches (words, melee (either fists or weapons), guns) although loses the tactics in favour of emotional engagement and chicken. It should also have been on the FRESH games list Scowling Dragon asked for...

I know a bit about Dogs in the Vineyard, and I have no idea why you talk about it because it's nothing like Pokemon's mechanics and because nobody asked for a game that can represent Pokemon's mechanics.


Another issue with using the Pokemon game mechanics that I don't think anybody's mentioned is the fact that most Pokemon battles go for an attack or two before one of the combatants is knocked out. Plenty end in a single hit. That... doesn't sound fun, to be honest.

There are some games that work like that. A typical fight in Legend of the Five Rings is quick, brutal, and ends in 1-3 rounds. But that game has much different in-built assumptions than most RPGs.

neonchameleon
2014-05-28, 02:49 PM
I know a bit about Dogs in the Vineyard, and I have no idea why you talk about it because it's nothing like Pokemon's mechanics and because nobody asked for a game that can represent Pokemon's mechanics.

Because the mechanics (raising and changing approach) match the parts of Pokemon you were highlighting.

Tengu_temp
2014-05-28, 03:02 PM
Dogs in the Vineyard has raising the stakes. Pokemon has raising creatures you caught to make them grow stronger. Different kind of raising.

And escalating conflicts mechanics are really something much different than Pokemon's elemental system.

JeenLeen
2014-05-29, 12:30 PM
This is a bad idea, because a big part of what makes Pokemon mechanics interesting is the whole raising aspect, and swapping pokemans in battle. When you're limited to one pokemon-equivalent (your character), it gets boring really fast, and it will be frustrating that you just can't arbitrarily do anything to some enemies no matter how hard you try. Also, even simplified, the rules of Pokemon have too much math for a tabletop RPG, so the game will be super-slow.

I could see this game working well if you had each player play someone who had a set of things that work like pokemon. The Persona game series comes to mind; you can have a few persona 'equipped', but only use one at a time. Effectively, you play one character but you switch which powersets you use, and each powerset has a limited number of HP.

The player can swap out which 'pokemon' he uses, thereby radically altering their statistics and powers and refreshing his HP. If he gets too weak in one form or just needs another one to effectively fight, he can switch again. He's only defeated when all his 'pokemon' are gone. Maybe mundane weapons cannot kill a pokemon-user until all the pokemon are gone? (Akin to how in Person: Innocent Sin, I think it is implied that persona users are tougher than normal humans due to being bonded with persona. A normal human would die if shot or gutted, but a persona-user can survive the hits.)

Tengu_temp
2014-05-29, 12:39 PM
A Persona-style game indeed takes care of the fact that having only one set of 4 abilities and no way to overcome your type's weaknesses is boring and arbitrary. Good idea.

Though there's still the fact that the mechanics of Pokemon, even simplified, have too much math. I used to like games where you do a lot of adding and substracting, often with very high numbers, but then I realized it adds nothing to the game and only slows it down.

JeenLeen
2014-05-29, 01:39 PM
You don't get what Im saying:

Not using a pokemon system to play pokemon, but using the system to play SOMETHING ELSE.

Like where the players play adventurers but are built like Pokemon. Fighters are Tanky like Fortress, we got fast but frail Rogues like weavile, Wizards are built like Sableye. Instead of switching out its taking a moment to catch your breath as too leave yourself very vulnerable but gain some benifits. And so an ally usualy must cover for you at the moment or such.

Mechanics that often encourage changing around because of mismatching elemental types, or wrong attack types.


A Persona-style game indeed takes care of the fact that having only one set of 4 abilities and no way to overcome your type's weaknesses is boring and arbitrary. Good idea.

Though there's still the fact that the mechanics of Pokemon, even simplified, have too much math. I used to like games where you do a lot of adding and substracting, often with very high numbers, but then I realized it adds nothing to the game and only slows it down.


I realized upon looking back at things that my 'equip-them-like-persona' idea doesn't allow for the "ally usually must cover you" or "catch your breath" idea the OP has. However, I agree with the opinion others have given is that it would be rather boring to have to play the guy sitting it out.

To create a generic pokemon system you could use for different settings, I would do something like this:

Note: I'm using the word pokemon, but intend it to mean 'a whatever that you equip. A person can only have x equipped at a time, and you can swap them out as an action. Your actual body cannot be harmed as long as you have one equipped.'
1. Find some way to represent the math and elements in a way that is simple. This is probably the hardest part. I would lean towards something that is not level-based, since it would be tedious to have to train up a level 1 pokemon you find. Also not clear how to work evolution. I generally lean towards d10 systems like WoD, but I could see a d20 system with levels if you had the trainer level up, but the pokemon he equips change things like BAB, saves, special abilities, etc. Perhaps you have to do something with a given pokemon enough to get it to evolve, thereby unlocking the higher-level abilities?
2. Create the 'pokemon' one can find/use/equip. Give them stat augmentations and abilities, depending on the system you create in #1. This is probably the most tedious part, but you could start with ones mirroring the pokemon you and your friends like the most, so maybe that wouldn't be too bad.
3. Create a setting and game. Key feature of any setting must be that having a pokemon makes you immune to fatal (if not all) damage and that you can only use one at a time; this gives a reason to only use pokemon to fight while precluding obvious player abuse of the system. What they are and how you get them can change from game to game.

I don't mean to say it will be easy. I don't know enough about the Pokemon mechanics (only watched the show, never played the game) to know how hard it would be to make those in pencil & paper, but from homebrewing in the past, it sounds like it would be rather hard to make something that would be both fun, balanced, and at least fairly true to the power-set in the show.

Scowling Dragon, do you think this would give you the type of game you want? I realize the tactics are different than what you originally imagined, but it should still have the switching tactics while hopefully being more engaging for the players.

Hytheter
2014-05-31, 09:38 PM
Even if you understand the maths, you'd still have to calculate every time someone attacks, which sounds like it could bog down the game while you put figures into your calculator.


That's why double battles are barely acceptable.

I'd think that the official tournament format would be more than "barely acceptable", especially when many moves and abilities are balanced around doubles or straight up don't work in singles.

I play singles, but doubles is quite playable and may actually be the more balanced game.

Gemini476
2014-06-01, 09:29 AM
As someone who once tried GMing for PTA, one of the bigger problems is that each player is controlling two, maybe three characters. At once. Multiply by four for a party and turns start to drag.
There's also a lot of math necessary, and you need to look up if something is super effective oir not rather often.

No, if you really want to play a game with pokemon mechanics then I'd suggest modelling it after Mystery Dungeon rather than the main series. The main games/anime/manga are great examples of something that works well in its own format but does not translate over into P&P easily.

I mean, look at this.

http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/47/DamageCalc.png
http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/32/ModifierCalc.png

I can see some methods for bringing that over (using a DtD40k7e-esque wounds system, for instance), but it'd be tricky. And require me to keep a calculator at the gaming table.

There have been plenty of adaptations, of course - PTA is the biggest one, although ppersonally I think its a PiTA, PTU is a spinoff by people who saw all of the problems with PTA, and Pokéthulhu honestly looks like one of the better ones.

Personally I'm unsure what I'd do, but it would probably involve either Mutants & Masterminds or D&D 4e.

JeenLeen
2014-06-02, 09:11 AM
As someone who once tried GMing for PTA, one of the bigger problems is that each player is controlling two, maybe three characters. At once. Multiply by four for a party and turns start to drag.
There's also a lot of math necessary, and you need to look up if something is super effective oir not rather often.

No, if you really want to play a game with pokemon mechanics then I'd suggest modelling it after Mystery Dungeon rather than the main series. The main games/anime/manga are great examples of something that works well in its own format but does not translate over into P&P easily.

I mean, look at this.

snipping the math

I can see some methods for bringing that over (using a DtD40k7e-esque wounds system, for instance), but it'd be tricky. And require me to keep a calculator at the gaming table.

There have been plenty of adaptations, of course - PTA is the biggest one, although ppersonally I think its a PiTA, PTU is a spinoff by people who saw all of the problems with PTA, and Pokéthulhu honestly looks like one of the better ones.

Personally I'm unsure what I'd do, but it would probably involve either Mutants & Masterminds or D&D 4e.

If someone wanted to do the math, it could be somewhat easy with either a programmable calculator having a computer open in Excel. (I personally don't like having tech at the table, but I know some groups use computers.) You could make a function/program and just have to type in the variables. I could see an easy Excel thing that has the final damage calculated as something like
= (((2*<cell where you type the level>+10)/250) * (<cell where type attack>/<cell where type defense>) * (<cell where type Base)) + 2) * <cell where modifier is calculated>)
Calculate modifier similarly. Excel has a decent random number generator. It regenerates a random number each time you do anything on the spreadsheet.

I would find that rather annoying, but I could see it working.
I reckon it wouldn't be too tough to have a database-like thing in the background (using VBA or Access?) to check if things are Super Effective or what. I could see it in VBA... but being long and clunky and very annoying to update.

But simplifying the math is probably better than any of the above.

Grod_The_Giant
2014-06-02, 01:17 PM
But simplifying the math is probably better than any of the above.
No kidding. Something like:

Damage = [Attack or Special Attack] + Move Base Damage (which would, ideally, be something like XdY; if not, then you'd probably want to throw in a few d6 or something to randomize the outcome), +1/2 level if you'd get STAB. To resist, subtract your Defense or Special Defense, plus your level if you have type advantage, minus your level if you have

Would capture the key elements in a format that's simple enough math to work through changes in play, and can be added up in advance.