| Welcome to Pokemon Tabletop. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Pokemon Realtalk - Game and Story Segregation Issue...; some issues I found when trying to play PTU | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 13 2014, 06:00 AM (1,567 Views) | |
| goblinguy | Dec 13 2014, 06:00 AM Post #1 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, this is going to be a big one for a first post. Sorry. So, I haven't had a ton of exposure to this game. I played all of one session, plus or minus several weeks of discussion. My GM, however, was somewhat of a novice. He left several....philosophical issues untouched, when I felt they were important to the game. Could you fine folks shed some light on the subject. Some Background: I grew up in love with the Pokemon series. The games, The VHS tapes, the cards, etc. One thing that always stuck with me was essentially "Pokemon are friends, not food". They travel with you and explore, they're very intelligent, almost (and in some cases definitely) sapient. But to me, this is where things fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. I believe that in a tabletop RPG, things need to be consistent. so, how do we explain away the Hunter as a playable class, or even begin to unravel the issue of pokemon breeding? The games rarely touch on this type of thing. The anime always seemed to go with a "pokemon are friend to all" approach, even insisting that there is no such thing as an evil pokemon, just an evil trainer. When we played. I wanted to play a breeder/researcher. I had the coolest Muchlax of the bunch, freshly hatched from an egg. But how am I supposed to use the Breeder abilities without it feeling....eugenics-y? In the real world, those sorts of professions require a professional detachment. Speaking as someone who got fired from a dog grooming place because I couldn't clip nails, this becomes a problem. For our first session, (the DM wanted to test out the combat), he put us up against some Burmys who felt we were a little too close to their beachfront property. If I (or my character) had been in a situation like this, I would have left, respecting their habitat. but we were thrust into this situation, and I had no choice but to go toe to toe with them. like, literally, my character kicked one in the face. I hated that. But the thing is, if my character HADN'T been standing in the middle of combat, it would have been EXTREMELY boring for me. But pokemon are given to people as PROTECTORS. why would I need one in a world where I can perform Cut at will, all by my human lonesome, as long as I have a sword? I guess this all boils down to "is this game truly playable, in the immersion sense of the word?" because the Pokemon setting has waay too many holes for me to be comfortable living it, as opposed to just playing the video game. |
![]() |
|
| carnackiArdent | Dec 13 2014, 08:43 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, for one thing, the classes in PT* (especially PTU) don't generally have flavor quite so sharply defined, and can be reflavored easily. Some of the splatbooks talk about this, like making Elementalists use advanced tech instead of effectively-magic. For your specific example, Hunters don't necessarily hunt Pokémon for food. Frankly, it's one of the classes that are most about fighting alongside your Pokémon in the sense of making both you and them do so better (especially the preview of the 1.05 Hunter we got on the blog). A hunter might be a bounty hunter, hired to take out or at least harry Pokémon too dangerous to allow to continue living in the area, or a hunter might have been raised by Poochyena and adopted their pack tactics. Breeders aren't generally about breeding Pokémon over and over to get a shiny - they'll have classes like Hatcher and Mentor who can make any Pokémon they breed and raise themselves better. In general terms, if you have these sorts of philosophical issues, I'd recommend talking to your GM about them, and working out a campaign whose tone suits you, the way others have previously recommended the same for a GM whose players, for instance, got more lethal than they liked for the tone of their game. Generally we just kind of... ignore the HM concept from the video games, because it doesn't always make sense. HMs will sometimes give Pokémon capability bonuses, but if a Pokémon is big/strong enough to carry you and can swim, it can carry you across water, even if it might do so faster if it knew Surf. So anything with sharp enough claws (or indeed, a human with a machete) can chop through restricting undergrowth, though Cut will let you do so easier because it ignores some Damage Reduction. As for why you'd have Pokémon in battle if you can have a sword, Pokémon moves are still a lot stronger than what a human can do, unless they have moves of their own. And you get moves through features and edges, so if you don't want to be an active combatant, consider taking classes or edges that don't do so. For instance, someone with a sword might have the Way of the Blade edge that lets them use Slash with it, or even get into the Weapon Specialist class, but if you're an Ace Trainer it's unlikely you'll bother - your Pokémon will be far more potent weapons. Plus, having a Pokémon doubles your action economy anyways; a Martial Artist and his Hitmonlee can gang up on an opponent, or deal with more targets at once. |
![]() |
|
| zoofman | Dec 13 2014, 08:54 AM Post #3 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This really boils down to something you, the GM, and the other players should have hashed out at the beginning - what peoples expectations of a Pokemon game are. You seem to be frustrated because the world your GM has presented doesn't match up with your expectations. On the other hand, you seem to be superimposing your own personal expectations of what Pokemon should be onto the game as a whole. Hunter as a class does not imply anything about hunting and skinning Pokemon, it mechanically promotes ambushing and teaming up on an enemy. If you weren't comfortable with the actual act of breeding Pokemon, making a Hatcher might not have been the best of ideas. Nor does a human being capable of fighting Pokemon make raising them redundant. This is something you should sit down with your GM and the other players about, but you should keep in mind that white washing the setting to your expectations might make it seem way too 'kiddyish' to the others. |
![]() |
|
| Elemental Knight | Dec 13 2014, 08:56 AM Post #4 |
|
Knight of the Spread Sheet
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, a lot of this depends on the world your GM's crafted. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it's the Standard Pokemon Tabletop world. Now, to be clear, that world isn't quite the same as the one in the video games and anime - it's close, but it isn't identical. In Pokemon Tabletop, humans can be as dangerous as Pokemon, if they train for combat. Just like in the real world, sometimes, bad things happen, even to good people - and while it might be up to you, the player, to stop it, your success rate is dictated by your actions and the GM's story, rather than 4kids and broadcast standards & practices boards. However, the point you bring up - that Pokemon are generally sapient, that they understand pain and emotions and have a sense of self - is a good one. Not every Tabletop game is like that! But the one I run, and the one I play in, go a step further - most Pokemon aren't just self-aware, they're roughly as intelligent as humans. So I've run into some of the concerns that you have. In fact, some of the Pokemon my Trainer has have discussed and pondered these same questions (because I enjoy roleplaying as them far, far too much).
Have you noticed how much of society in the Pokemon world is dedicated to the care of Pokemon? Pokemon Centers are in every town, and their services are free for Trainers to use - which implies that they're government-subsidized (someone's gotta keep the lights on). There are tons of services dedicated to improving your Pokemon - Move Tutors, TM manufacturers, Daycare specialists, they all improve your Pokemon by leveling them up or giving them new Moves, just to name a few. It's a fair extrapolation to say that, wherever there's a need for something, there's a service for it. In the games I'm in, a player who breeds Pokemon doesn't release the eggs they don't want, they sell them. The Pokemon Centers have a network where you can sell the eggs, and they match the egg to a buyer somewhere else in the world - perhaps a new Trainer, or a family who desires a certain kind of Pokemon as a pet. Any eggs that don't come out "perfect" can go into the system, and find a better home. Even after they hatch, they can do this, rather like a global, data-rich ASPCA. As for the Pokemon themselves... I may get to that a little later. Suffice to say that, if you yourself as a responsible breeder, and your Pokemon are self-aware creatures, you'd be getting consent from your Pokemon for any breeding pair-ups; sometimes, they may say 'no', and you would respect that. For instance, my character's Gallade is in a committed relationship with another character's Gardevoir; though said Gallade has a few Egg and TM Moves that would prove profitable to breed (as the aforementioned Pokemon Center network pays more for Eggs with additional moves bred in), my character doesn't do that. She doesn't even push for them to breed between themselves. As far as she's concerned, he's off-limits. Now, she's tangled with other Breeders who do not share her views, and she's gone toe-to-toe with them over it, and that made for interesting story and roleplay situations, as well as making me feel like I'd made the world a better, kinder place. But that's another story for another day.
So this is a tricky thing for any GM. Most adventurers are kinda crazy, by necessity of the game! The average person wouldn't charge into danger, wouldn't stick his nose where it doesn't belong, wouldn't start fights. But because adventure needs to happen at the table, adventurers generally are willing to kick over anthills to see what happens. Now, I'd suggest a two-pronged approach here. 1. Just because you had a situation to deal with, doesn't mean you can't find a solution that avoids direct violence. In this case, for instance: Why are the Burmy encroaching on the human habitats? I would presume it's because their own habitats aren't sufficient - either they naturally outgrew them, or something's happened to their usual places. You, as a player, could decide to treat the Burmy infestation as a symptom rather than as the cause of the problem. Maybe you'll leave the Burmy be for now, and investigate their normal habitats - and if there's a problem there, you can solve that. But this leads to the next prong... 2. Talk with your GM. Share with them how uncomfortable this made you. It sounds to me like you want a world where people and Pokemon can live in harmony, barring the occasional bad guy - and that you want to treat Pokemon as beings with rights and feelings. This may change their outlook on how they use Pokemon, because it should - one of the first things a Pokemon Tabletop GM needs to shake off, is the idea that Pokemon can just flat-out replace things like kobolds or vampires from other game systems, at least in the kind of world you want to game in. In a world where Pokemon are generally peaceful and generally sentient, then they don't do bad things unless spurred to do so, by happenstance, nature, or the bad apple that spoils the bunch. Ask your GM to trace situations back to those kinds of issues, where you can solve them and have everyone walk away happy. Not everything needs to be gritty.
The same reason we have bodyguards in a world where one man can kill a hundred with the right kind of gun. A human can certainly become as adept at combat as a Pokemon. In fact, a well-trained human is more dangerous, because:
Being a Pokemon Trainer means:
Oh dear Arceus yes! I will grant that it takes practice and skill for a GM to make a Pokemon world truly feel like an immersive Pokemon world, rather than a world where the random encounters just happen to be catchable. But the only way they'll get that experience is if you work with them, and find out what you do and don't like about the experience to-date.. If you want to talk more about this with me, or have further questions, let me know. I really, really enjoy talking about these subjects, and so do a number of my gaming-group friends. We've been playing Pokemon Tabletop for years now, and I imagine we'll be playing for many more yet. There's an infinity of wonderful Pokemon worlds out there, and you get to make new friends as you explore them! What could be better than that? |
![]() |
|
| GrayGriffin | Dec 13 2014, 12:25 PM Post #5 |
![]()
"Ah, you unmasked me. Whatever shall I do."
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, my Hunter character started out as a Capture Specialist, and even after branching out to Hunter, his first Features were focused on improving his accuracy with Pokeballs, in order to capture unruly wild Pokemon, or better maneuver his team around the battlefield. He actually didn't get the Pack Tactics feature until he captured a wild Arbok leading a pack of Ekans, who submitted to him and was, in-character, the one who actually started training the rest of the team to work as a pack in the first place. So there's really nothing about killing or skinning Pokemon in his characterization. |
![]() |
|
| The Black Glove | Dec 13 2014, 01:02 PM Post #6 |
|
A Man Of Heart
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hooookay. Before throw my hat into this, let me double-check the topic... PTU. Got it.![]() I've always felt Hunter is less of a guy who goes around killing the mothers of baby Deerlings, and more of the kind of person who is an expert in tracking down and trapping Pokemon for capture- sort of like a Capture Specialist Prestige Class, if you will. Maybe not capturing Pokemon to feed themselves, but to increase their collection and maybe sell them to other trainers, since they are more skilled at hunting down a specific request. Breeder on the other- wait, this is PTU? Going to assume you mean Hatcher. Then Hatcher, on the other hand, doesn't need to be played as "Master of Eugenics". Brock and Gold certainly never did that- they just cared for the eggs, and the Pokemon contained within them. A breeder can be focused on breeding the best things they can, or they can focus on just doing the best they can with whatever comes out of the egg. Using EK's character as an example, a Hatcher is not bound by their class. Actually, last I remembered, Lauren doesn't even have the Hatcher class. This goes for every class- a Rogue isn't always a thief, Medics aren't always trained doctors or nurses, and a Chef's food doesn't have to be an extravagant meal. This seems more like an issue with your GM than with the system itself. We have stuff in place for interacting without combat, such as Charm, Intimidation, and Guile. I'm willing to let him slip by without calling him out too much, since he clearly wanted to see how combat worked, but you need to talk with him to ensure that that playstyle is an option. You're talking to the guy who traditionally plays the healplz, so I can sympathize. But it doesn't mean you have to punt something in the face to be effective. You can make skill checks mid-combat to try and convince them to stop the fighting, you can use Trip or Grapple maneuvers to keep them from going after your allies, you can keep your friends topped off on HP with items, or throw Pokeballs... the list goes on. Just because your class is passive doesn't mean you have to be. I think the problem here is that you're comparing the video game to the roleplaying game, a common error made around here. There are always limitations as to what can happen within a video game. You won't find skill checks being made for interaction, you won't find Pokemon moving around, using blocking terrain as cover. Team Rocket doesn't make mechas and have them fight you directly, and you certainly can't punch them back. A roleplaying game is a chance for you to make your own world of Pokemon, and to create the details as to how it functions yourself. EK and I are in a game where a farm that was illegally inbreeding Joltik and Spinarak evos ran into trouble- first one of the farmers being captured by said spiders and nearly eaten, as the inbreeding had lead to their minds being... not exactly capable of coherent thought; the farm was also attacked by a group of crossbow-toting Sneasel mercenaries, holding the man hostage so they could bring him in to the authorities. When we arrived, we only knew there was an injured man who had escaped, looking for help, and we ended up fighting through hordes of them due to roleplay (turns out shouting "DEMACIA" can draw attention to you) before the Sneasel eventually surrendered and explained the situation (oh, yeah, they could talk). Something like this would never happen to Ash and friends, and would be unlikely to occur in the video games, but in our campaign, it was Wednesday. |
![]() |
|
| Gear_Skitty | Dec 13 2014, 02:13 PM Post #7 |
|
Just Another Cat In The Machine
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But how else will you Spin To Win, Finales your Funkeln, or be a big help to your team? Anyway, I've been following this topic since the first post, but have held off posting (for fear that anything I tried to type would be rambling and come off as a small teaser/advert for my own campaign, something I seem to do a lot). I figured a couple big names and at least one Dev would chime in... lo and behold, I was right. One thing I've taken from a Nuzlocke comic I like, is that for Pokemon to stay healthy, they need the exercise and stress only a battle can bring. It significantly extends their expected lifespan, boosts their immune system, and keeps them in shape. With the added boon of the PokeCenter Healing Machines, a Trainer's partners are exceedingly safer and better off than their wild or captive (caged) counterparts. Another thing is that, yes, Pokemon are intelligent. That doesn't mean they're ~nice~. A pack of wild Mankey, Carvanna, or Grimer could seriously threaten a town or Route, and most domestic trainers may not be suited to handle them. PC Trainers are still mostly "murder hobos", like their D&D/Pathfinder/Other TTG counterparts, but a campaign can easily be about taming a wilderness rife with powerful Pokemon or traveling around a region dealing with the more troublesome altercations when People and Pokemon clash over territory, but in a calm and orderly fashion. I'll echo (as I do often) that you, your GM, and your co-players should have a chat to iron out just what the aim and theme for the campaign is. Maybe you could help him bring some practicality and logistics to the overall region/NPCs and how they all work. Unless your characters are brand new to the region/world, they should know at least the government and who leads it. Unless they live in caves or the most remote of villages, the basic current events and happenings should be stated. It may seem a bit nitpicky or too in-depth, but doing that makes it feel more like an actual world AND can set up for story plots beyond "travel here and fight the creatures, then rinse and repeat ad nauseam". I haven't, and will not, touch on the Breeding/Hatcher/Hunter bit, not only because I have nothing to add, but because unlike the OP, I haven't actually PLAYED in this system yet. Strangers are ~scary~, and/but I want to run my own campaign.... |
![]() |
|
| Domo | Dec 13 2014, 05:31 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Kawaii Detective
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One major block here is that PTU takes a lot of its default settings from Pokemon Special, which is markedly different in tone from the anime and video games. Pokemon, and Pokemon training, are much more dangerous in general, a lot more weird stuff is liable to happen once you wander out of your hometown. So while it isn't impossible to run a rated Y game of PTU, it isn't going to be the base. That's why trainers are able to get into battle themselves so easily in the first place. Second, you probably shouldn't play classes that you, as a player, are going to have moral issues with. Hatching/breeding in Pokemon is very similar to animal husbandry in the real world in the sense that those sorts of characters are going to be aware of how genetics impact offspring potential. If that is a problem for you, perhaps you shouldn't have picked that as the basis of your character. And third, do what everyone else has suggested and bring your problems to your group and especially your DM to try to work them out. Your vision of the campaign tone clearly did not match up with the DM's, and that's an issue that can only be solved by communicating with him. |
![]() |
|
| daikiraikimi | Dec 13 2014, 07:06 PM Post #9 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I definitely agree with what other folks have said about talking with the GM. So as not to rehash, I'll provide some of my general thoughts on the scenario.
In both the anime and the games, humans are shown to eat Pokemon. (For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPW0S5sNMK4 ) In general, the Pokemon universe has a lot of cognitive dissonance. The shows and game center on powerful messages of friendship and acceptance, but the structure of the world itself defies these messages. Humans capture Pokemon from the wild, taking them away from their families, and force them to battle, to evolve, or a number of other things. In the anime, Ash releases butterfree, and offers to release Pikachu when he sees they are happier that way, but he is shown to be the exception. (Both of his friends think he is crazy for leaving Pikachu, his most powerful Pokemon.) Many trainers are highlighted as abusive towards their Pokemon, and besides disdain from other trainers there doesn't seem to be any oversight to prevent this abuse. Essentially, the Pokemon world is an imagining from a completely human perspective, glossing over any real discussion of Pokemon rights. (In fact, all Pokemon rights activists in the games are composed of organized criminals-- questioning the ethics of the Pokemon world is something only bad/misguided characters do. People of the Pokemon world just accept eating Pokemon as a thing that goes on in the background, without thinking to compare the eaten Pokemon to their own beloved friends. To get the "feel" of the Pokemon universe, I recommend taking the approach of the anime and the games. Deal with violence in a slapstick manner-- concentrate on adventure/comedy and save drama for the especially important plot events. (Such as when Pikachu is badly injured/dies in Mewtwo Strikes Back.) Paint every person as evil only skin deep-- in the anime, Team Rocket become more friends with Ash and co. as time goes on. They tease one another as rivals even when TR is trying to steal Ash's Pikachu. (Again with the cognitive dissonance-- you can "steal" Pokemon because they are legally considered property.) Everyone fully believes that everything will turn out okay, and so there isn't much point in resenting people who do bad things. In the Pokemon world, good always wins and everyone knows it. To sum it up, this quote from Junichi Masuda about the Pokemon world:
It certainly does do this, but personally I don't really accept that explanation. The anime clearly shows that Pokemon have the same range of emotions as humans, and are capable of cruelty without being ordered. (I recall episodes where Pokemon bully weaker Pokemon, but I'm going to need to add in the example later. Currently re-watching the anime series. One good example could be Meowth, though. In the Island of the Giant Pokémon episode, Jesse and James' Pokemon, Ekans and Weezing, are the ones that say there are no evil Pokemon, and won't attack Ash's Pikachu, but Meowth has no such reservations.) Instead of dealing with any character as good/evil, though, I tend to view it as conflicting motivations/goals/needs. Resource competition is the number one cause of conflict and violence in my experience. That said, special allocations need to be made for the Pokemon world's unique cooperative bent.
I think that this can be done more easily with GM help. The GM can make two Pokemon get crushes on one another, or create a plot reason for a baby Pokemon to be born. For example, maybe there is a kid who can't afford a Pokeball but wants to start their Pokemon journey. Or maybe you visit a breeding house, like the ones in the games, and there are two Pokemon trying for a baby but can't do it-- the breeder might be able to help. In the anime, Brock is a Pokemon breeder but his breeding skills don't come up... ever, I think? His skill with Pokemon manifests itself in being very knowledgeable in Pokemon care, making high quality Pokemon food, grooming, and possibly giving his Pokemon massages. If you like, you can also have Pokemon breeding take place off screen entirely-- just talk to your GM about what Pokemon you want to breed, make your rolls, and start the new session with an egg.
A few thoughts on this one. First, wild Pokemon are not always reasonable-- sometimes they will attack you with little provocation and you have to defend yourself and your Pokemon. (Evidenced many times in the anime.) This doesn't mean you have to permanently cripple them, but sometimes you have to knock them out. In real life, being knocked out is, like, super bad for you. But in the Pokemon universe it really isn't. Second, if you are only able to have fun while in the middle of battle, there's probably something going on with the GM. (That's just my opinion, though.) There are a lot of ways to non-violently resolve situations and character interaction and development can be really interesting as well. In the game I'm running, one of my characters is a non-violent Pokemon rights activist, and I plan to give experience out of combat to allow him and his Pokemon to grow. There is no real reason that everything has to revolve around battling. That said, the Pokemon show has battles pretty frequently-- almost every episode. Framing Pokemon battles in either a slapstick fashion or as friendly competition can help with the moral problems.
I'm not sure that is really the reason people have Pokemon. Quite frankly, Pokemon are used for sport. If you want to be more optimistic, you could say an important part of human/Pokemon interaction is keeping up inter-species bonds and thus keeping humans connected with nature/the environment. Looking at it from a purely power oriented perspective, many Pokemon are waaay too powerful for a human to take on generally speaking. You may be able to fend off Pidgeys and Ratatta near your small town, but if you actually go exploring you are going to run into much more powerful Pokemon with abilities you can't compete with. |
![]() |
|
| Dark_Star | Dec 17 2014, 05:13 PM Post #10 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
While others have covered your specific points far better than I'd be able to, I just thought I'd drop my own two cents here. I always felt that Pokemon were basically the 'Animals' of the pokemon world. I know in the earlier Pokemon Anime seasons, there were plenty of normal animals, but as the series went on and more pokemon were introduced in the games, regular animals got phased out, mainly because they weren't actually needed anymore. As has already been pointed out, people in the pokemon world do eat animals, and it only makes sense that they would, because humans are omnivores, and can't survive entirely on fruits and vegetables. Even then, some pokemon would fit into that category as well, even if only partially. After all, it's specifically stated in many of Tropius' pokedex entries that the fruits it grows on its neck are popular with children. This isn't to say that pokemon can't be intelligent. I've spent long enough around dogs, for example, to know for a fact that they can be QUITE intelligent, and can easily understand what you're saying and communicate with you. That does not, however, put them on par with humans. Granted, some pokemon are specifically stated to be just as intelligent as humans (mainly the Psychic types), they tend to be in the minority. Of course, this is just my personal view on that subject, and others will have their own interpretations. Also, as has already been stated, generally speaking pokemon battling is treated as a sport. There are some people who take it way too seriously, some people who try to cheat, and some people who are sore losers, just like in real world sports. And just like in real-world sports, people will take any advantage they can get to win, sometimes regardless of the morality or ethics involved in such 'advantages'. Whether this is the use of performance-enhancing drugs (Protein, Zinc, and PP Up to name a few), daily training regimens (Ace Trainer's base feature), or moral support (most Passive Pokemon Support classes), there are many different ways to give your pokemon an edge in battle, and just as many reasons to do so. On that last note, while I see most everyone else has addressed your concern over Breeder/Hatcher, I'd also like to point out that, in the fluff entry on Hatcher for PTU, it actually states that a trainer's reasons for becoming a hatcher can be anywhere from wanting to have the very best team of pokemon possible, to wanting to make a profit through selling eggs or baby pokemon, to even just simply wanting to experience the joy of raising a pokemon from birth. Still, if you don't like the feel of the class, like others have said, you don't have to use it. There are plenty of other options. If you want to play a support character, you could go with Mentor or Ace Trainer, who focus more on bringing out a pokemon's potential than trying to breed the perfect pokemon. Or if you'd rather play a more active character, you could try something like Cheerleader or Mastermind, who have a range of options open to them to improve their pokemon's abilities mid-battle. One last note: As everyone else has said, talk with your DM about your expectations and impressions of his campaign. The worst thing you could do is suffer in silence. I guarantee you, a GOOD DM will listen to you, and then try to change things up in their campaign so everyone can have fun. Perhaps next time, that group of Burmies on the beach won't be quite so quick to attack, giving an opportunity to defuse the situation with a well-rolled Charm check. Edited by Dark_Star, Dec 17 2014, 05:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pokemon: Tabletop United · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
12:22 PM Jul 11
|
Pokéball created by Sarah & Delirium of the ZNR





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







12:22 PM Jul 11