Project Pokemon - **The Return To Greatness**

[Carakki]

Originally Posted by Vilsara

Two, it's my personal view that we shouldn't make cards for EVERY Pokemon in existence- whenever possible, I'd prefer to keep the cards to fully evolved, legendaries, etc.

This occurred to me as well. C3G does not pump out every superhero made (although they may eventually), and similarly, I think that making all of the Pokemon would simply clog the game.

Speaking of C3G, I also like their idea of doing 'releases.' We could do ours in waves, Pokemon not being superpowered (except for the legendaries). For example:

P4H Wave 1: Kanto Exploration

Beginner's Luck

• Venosaur
• Blastoise
• Charizard
• Pikachu
• Ditto

Eeveelution

• Eevee
• Jolteon
• Flareon
• Vaporeon
• Espion
• Umbreon

So on and so forth. Perhaps a pack of Trainers could be included in each wave.

This brings me to another point of contention: squads. I know Pokemon are meant to be individual, like animals with more personality, but the concept of Heroscape without squads is not appealing.

[BiggaBullfrog]

I guess I'll throw in my thoughts on the ideas being thrown around.

Overall Design Progress rules: I agree with what Xn F M proposed as far as a 3/4 majority, having design pass down the line of members, nominating/voting in new members, and mostly everything else he said except for taking squads out of playtesting. As squads are a big part of Classic 'Scape, I think we need to include them in the tests, especially if we want to make a certain Pokemon good/bad against squads.

Compatible with Classic or Stand Alone: I think we should go compatible with Classic 'scape, at least for right now. If we want special rules, that can come later, but first we need some Pokemon that work with Classic to start from, IMO. I also think if we do have special rules that they only apply to certain Pokemon specific campaigns/scenarios.

Evolution: I'm against trying to throw in a mid-game evolution mechanic, just to keep the game simple. If we really want to add it in, I don't think it would be hard to come up with a campaign of sorts where the Pokemon evolve between battles. Otherwise, it'll probably get messy.

Trainers: I like both the actual figure and unseen general ideas here, though I think I prefer the actual figure. Then you can have the Kurrok/Kato idea going on with clear sight/with X amount of spaces limitations going on. We want flexibility with Pokemon, but not complete free will IMO. Having figures also opens up the possibility abilities Pokemon can have that work with trainers (guard Pokemon that get a bonus when near their trainer, etc.)

Types: I think if we include type interaction, it should be limited to Special Powers/Attacks, mainly Special Attacks. It wouldn't be too hard to say "if Charizard uses Flamethrower Special Attack against a Grass or Ice Pokemon, roll two extra attack die." Normal attacks, though, should be kept type advantage free. After all, these are the basic attacks that probably won't do a whole lot of extra damage anyway (Scratch, Tackle, maybe Ember or Water Gun for basic ranged attacks). For the Normal/Ghost issue, we could give the Ghosts an ability against normal attacks, or maybe just attacks from normal pokemon, and for Ground/Flying, we could copy the Earth Elemental and limit it to a Ground type Special Attack not affecting figures with Flying.

Status Effects: I agree with what Vilsara said with using markers with associated rules, but limiting to only the prominent effects (think the original games, with just poison, burn, paralyze, sleep, freeze, confuse; and some of those could probably be used simply as removing OM's; none of some of the less important ones, like attraction).

Card Templates: I liked the templates used in the first thread, with the type replacing the General, although throwing in Carakki's idea of dual-colors for dual-typed Pokemon is a good one too. I'm against assigning Pokemon a General, as they really only do what their Trainers tell them too. Speaking of that, if we use figures for trainers, I could easily see them having generals.

Squads?: Yes squads are important for Heroscape, and yes Pokemon are typically used individually in the games. However, with Heroscape, I could easily see some Pokemon functioning as squads, especially since their bios talk about them working in packs (Houndour, a group of Rattata/Raticate, Zubat/Golbat, and a lot Bug Pokemon such as Beedrill). For certain Pokemon, I don't see putting them in squads as being an issue.

Hope that helped in some way.

[Carakki]

Originally Posted by BiggaBullfrog

Squads?: Yes squads are important for Heroscape, and yes Pokemon are typically used individually in the games. However, with Heroscape, I could easily see some Pokemon functioning as squads, especially since their bios talk about them working in packs (Houndour, a group of Rattata/Raticate, Zubat/Golbat, and a lot Bug Pokemon such as Beedrill). For certain Pokemon, I don't see putting them in squads as being an issue.

Differentiating squads based on the Pokemon is a good idea. Unown would be another good squad, maybe a four-figure squad (they're usually found in masses, right?).

Obviously legendaries would be unique heroes, and I could see rarer Pokemon as common/uncommon heroes (depending on their rarity). Starter Pokemon would also do well as uniques.

Also, any thoughts on unique squads? Is there an elite corps of Pokemon anywhere? Food for thought.

[Xn F M]

Originally Posted by BiggaBullfrog

Overall Design Progress rules: I agree with what Xn F M proposed as far as a 3/4 majority, having design pass down the line of members, nominating/voting in new members, and mostly everything else he said except for taking squads out of playtesting. As squads are a big part of Classic 'Scape, I think we need to include them in the tests, especially if we want to make a certain Pokemon good/bad against squads.

I didn't mean to not test them against squads, I just don't think the squad test is really necessary. When you get on to the army tests you'll inevitably be testing them against squads but in a role appropriate for the pokemon. I would expect at least 9/10 pokemon to get absolutely murdalated by an equal force of squaddies so why bother with a specific test for that?

And as far as which pokemon we cover goes I'm not in favor of only doing the final evolutions/legendaries. Aside from the obvious examples of Vigoroth/Slacking and Polywrath/Polywhirl where the mid-level forms are just as good as the final form, when you're using a point system there's a definite place for lower powered figures. I see absolutely no reason not to include full evolutionary chains, especially for better / more popular pokemon. I would have no problem with leaving out things like Magicarp/Feebass, the cocoons, and other generally useless pokemon (I do have an idea of Unown though . . .).

Evolution: pokemon don't evolve mid battle, they do it afterwards. I don't see much more of a reason not to include evolution rules than that (unless we do a specific pokescape variant, even then it still probably wouldn't happen in game.)

Squads: I don't like the idea of squads of pokemon. As far as I know there are only really two pokemon that it would be appropriate to give one life to, Unown and Shedinja, beyond that I see most pokemon as uncommon heroes, with the exception of the legendaries and specific pokemon (if we go that route). I would not be opposed to releasing "pack/swarm" cards at some point in the future that allow you to activate multiple pokemon on a single OM.

Originally Posted by Vilsara

As well, I have one extra question to add to the survey: What will be the criteria for what Pokemon we do?

Assuming we keep the "first 150*" criteria from the OP, I had just assumed we'd pick the pokemon we want to do as we go. Though that actually seems like a bad way to do things now that I think about it. Assuming we don't decide only to use the final evolutions, I think we should go through the list one (or twice) only doing first stage pokemon (allowing free picking) and then open thins up a bit from there. I like the idea of starting with baby steps; baby steps for baby pokemon.

* I say first 150 as opposed first 151 because I really don't see Mew as being all that doable, as she has no specific moveset. Mew is defined by being able to learn any TM which makes it difficult to boil her down to a card.

[Carakki]

Originally Posted by Xn F M

Evolution: pokemon don't evolve mid battle, they do it afterwards. I don't see much more of a reason not to include evolution rules than that (unless we do a specific pokescape variant, even then it still probably wouldn't happen in game.)

Personally, I think that's reason enough. Except in a campaign/dungeon crawl situation, when would it ever be useful to evolve your Pokemon after a battle?

Originally Posted by Xn F M

Squads: I don't like the idea of squads of pokemon. As far as I know there are only really two pokemon that it would be appropriate to give one life to, Unown and Shedinja, beyond that I see most pokemon as uncommon heroes, with the exception of the legendaries and specific pokemon (if we go that route). I would not be opposed to releasing "pack/swarm" cards at some point in the future that allow you to activate multiple pokemon on a single OM.

This, I think, has to do with the transfer to the Heroscape system. For example, Rattata and Raticate are basically just really big rats. Why should they receive more than one life, when the metal-plated Souborg Deathreavers are stuck with one?

Some Pokemon, such as legendaries or particularly iconic ones such as starter Pokemon, may warrant Uncommon or Unique status, but the common Pokemon is just that - Common.

[wulfhunter667]

Wow. You guys have been busy. I am very please that all of you show the strong desire to do this the right way and put serious effort into this.
That being said, here are my opinions on what has been said so far...
Membership
We have a good solid base to start with. As of Sunday evening, applications will be closed for a while and we will accept new members in the future based on thread participation and current member suggestion only.
Member Status
This is important. There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you fell like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who comes in after Monday and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.
Voting
With the number of folks we have now, I think that 5 votes will do, as opposed to 3. We are all working toward the same goal here, and I think, once we have this all hammered out and know what direction we're headed, it will be easy to get there. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.
Design Order
Design order will go right down the list after we have the Trainers and Junior Trainers seperated. If a Trainer misses 2 consecutive turns to design, he drops to Junior Trainer status and we promote a Junior Trainer to Trainer. This is not to show favoritism towards anyone, or punish anyone for the circumstances of there life, but rather to keep the thread going with people we can depend on to give 100% all of the time.
If everyone agrees to this and no one has any problems with it or has more to offer, I will add it to the rules section and we will vote on it tomorrow.
Design
-Classic Heroscape: Compatible or no?
This is a tricky one, but I think the answer here need to be yes. Compatiblity with HS is vital to getting other's interested in what we are doing here. It also allows for players to draft 2nd and 3rd stage Pokemon with out having to draft lower-powered Pokemon first. That doesn't mean I don't want a second, seperate rulesset for Pokescape, but I'll go into that later.
-Evolution: Yes or No (and How)?
Evolving during a game is out. Cartoon not withstanding, Pokemon do not evolve during combat. I think we need to use a variation of the rules found in the new D&D MS to handle evolution. In a Pokescape Campaign setting, when you move from one scenario to the next, you gain a specific number of additional points to add to your army to account for evolution and newly captured Pokemon. In addition, you may trade in 1st and 2nd stage Pokemon and apply that point cost to drafting the next stage of that Pokemon only. I really think this will work in a Pokescape game.
-Trainers?
I think the best idea I've seen so far is to create iconic trainers as cards and then other trainers seperately. Here's a wild idea for you. After drafting your army for Pokescape, if you did not draft a Trainer card, shuffle the deck of Trainer Effects cards and draw one. You have the benefits of that Trainer Effects card for that game and may trade it in at the end of the game for a new Trainer Effects card. Maybe have one card for each specific type of Pokemon, with iconic names like Bug Catcher, Hiker and Blackbelt, each having a game specific effect on Bug, Rock and Fighting types respectively. Just a thought.
-Types and Type Interaction
Types and Type Interaction is as iconic as the Pokemon themselves, but I think we need to be very careful here. I envision the bottom of each card having a Pokedex "power" listed on it giving the type interactions FOR POKESCAPE ONLY. That means having the text read something like...
This Pikachu is strong against attack a, b and c type Pokemon, weak against attack d, e and f type Pokemon, and takes no damage from attacks from g type Pokemon.
In this manner, we get to keep the type interaction without effecting classic HS playability. Again, just a thought.
-Status Effects?
Status Effects are a must also, but again, have to be very carefully worded. Instead of markers, maybe we could use a variation of the system the CCG uses, where, if a Pokemon has a Status effect on it, you turn the card to represent it. If no one like that idea, or wants to hear more, I guess we'll stay with markers, but I kinda want to stay away from too many markers on a card to avoid confusion, and lets be honest here, if an 8-year-old can remember what a card turned to the right means in CCG, he can remember what a card turned to the right here means.
-Standardized Miniatures? (The Pokemon Trading Figure Game holds some possibilities here)
That's going to be tough. I don't know of any kind of Pokemon miniatures that would even come close to being in scale with HS. I like the idea of using the Pokemon Miniature Game minis, but that will eventually get expensive, There are even some older miniatures that came out in Pokemon first hit that could be usable, but again are the wrong scale and I'm sure be now are hard to come by. With that in mind, we should think about making foldable paper minis for the people who cannot afford to throw tons of money at this. It's fairly cheap, and although not the prettiest sight in the world, would serve as a usable proxy for the figures.
-Standardized Card Template? (and someone to design it)
I want the more artistically inclined members of the group to start working on this as soon as possible. Using type for the color scheme is an excellent idea, but why not take that a little bit further. There was another thread that had a Pokemon card that is BEAUTIFUL. It is here. Use that for ideas for the template creation, with the type color schemes.
-Squads
I'm not so sure about this one, but if the majority wants them, I'll go along with it.
-What will be the criteria for what Pokemon we do?
Well, if you made it this far, I think your ready for the big one.
I want to see us product a Pokescape Master Set, complete with rules, cards, glyphs and campaign scenarios. If you have read all of this post, we'll see the direction I am moving in - classic compatibility with a Pokemon-flavoured Master set. Then, after the master set, wave after wave of Pokemon until we complete the first 151, plus Trainer cards, etc. You wanted to know, there it is. I even have a list of Pokemon I think we should tackle first to best represent the most types of Pokemon and have classic compatible figures to use right off the bat. I'll post the list later if that's the direction we take.

Those are my ideas. I have many, many more to share, but they'll come later.
Comments please.

[Xn F M]

Originally Posted by Carakki

This, I think, has to do with the transfer to the Heroscape system. For example, Rattata and Raticate are basically just really big rats. Why should they receive more than one life, when the metal-plated Souborg Deathreavers are stuck with one?

Some Pokemon, such as legendaries or particularly iconic ones such as starter Pokemon, may warrant Uncommon or Unique status, but the common Pokemon is just that - Common.

That's a mater of level though. at level 50 ratatta has 90-137 health (without EVs) and at 100 it has 170-264. I can see an argument for one health there, but if it's a Ratatta worth bringing into battle it would have at least two health (though some cheap, common hero Rattata might be nice). I don't think any of the first stage starter pokemon should have fewer than two health.

[wulfhunter667]

Originally Posted by Xn F M

That's a mater of level though. at level 50 ratatta has 90-137 health (without EVs) and at 100 it has 170-264. I can see an argument for one health there, but if it's a Ratatta worth bringing into battle it would have at least two health (though some cheap, common hero Rattata might be nice). I don't think any of the first stage starter pokemon should have fewer than two health.

This discussion is best left until after we have the rules, guidelines and direction we're going in set. Save it til we start working on those cards fellas.

[Xn F M]

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

Member Status
This is important. There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you fell like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who comes in after Monday and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.

I like it

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

Voting
With the number of folks we have now, I think that 5 votes will do, as opposed to 3. We are all working toward the same goal here, and I think, once we have this all hammered out and know what direction we're headed, it will be easy to get there. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.

That sounds like it would be enough votes for me (though i would have to count the number of memebers atm) my major concern is for cards passing that the majority of members don't feel are ready so at the minimum we should require 51% yeses.

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

Design Order
Design order will go right down the list after we have the Trainers and Junior Trainers seperated. If a Trainer misses 2 consecutive turns to design, he drops to Junior Trainer status and we promote a Junior Trainer to Trainer. This is not to show favoritism towards anyone, or punish anyone for the circumstances of there life, but rather to keep the thread going with people we can depend on to give 100% all of the time.
If everyone agrees to this and no one has any problems with it or has more to offer, I will add it to the rules section and we will vote on it tomorrow.

I don't have a problem with the trainer/jr trainer statuses, but how would we determine design order from that?

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

-Types and Type Interaction
Types and Type Interaction is as iconic as the Pokemon themselves, but I think we need to be very careful here. I envision the bottom of each card having a Pokedex "power" listed on it giving the type interactions FOR POKESCAPE ONLY. That means having the text read something like...
This Pikachu is strong against attack a, b and c type Pokemon, weak against attack d, e and f type Pokemon, and takes no damage from attacks from g type Pokemon.
In this manner, we get to keep the type interaction without effecting classic HS playability. Again, just a thought.

I don't think that listing strengths would work as many pokemon have multiple types. However if we were to list type weaknesses and immunities at the bottom of the card and give descriptors to special attacks I think that we'd have a clean way to handle the type chart.

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

-Status Effects?
Status Effects are a must also, but again, have to be very carefully worded. Instead of markers, maybe we could use a variation of the system the CCG uses, where, if a Pokemon has a Status effect on it, you turn the card to represent it. If no one like that idea, or wants to hear more, I guess we'll stay with markers, but I kinda want to stay away from too many markers on a card to avoid confusion, and lets be honest here, if an 8-year-old can remember what a card turned to the right means in CCG, he can remember what a card turned to the right here means.

I agree that we should keep status ailments. Paralysis, Freezing, Burning, Sleep, and confusion are important parts of the game. I do think though that we should scaperize them to try and keep things simple.

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

-Standardized Miniatures?.

I'm against standardized minis. Let people use whatever toys/minis they can find at the appropriate scale. Very few pokemon will have areas that aren't hitzones, so poses would be mostly irreelvant. I do like the idea of making paper-fold stand ins though.

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

-Standardized Card Template? (and someone to design it)
I want the more artistically inclined members of the group to start working on this as soon as possible. Using type for the color scheme is an excellent idea, but why not take that a little bit further. There was another thread that had a Pokemon card that is BEAUTIFUL. It is here. Use that for ideas for the template creation, with the type color schemes.

Personally, I really like this format:



I'd like to make a motion that we not add anything new to the table for a while, right now we have about eight or nine major design/administrative issues to hammer out and I'm afraid we're going to get bogged down in details before we actually do anything.

[mac122]

Personally, I really like this format:



I'd like to make a motion that we not add anything new to the table for a while, right now we have about eight or nine major design/administrative issues to hammer out and I'm afraid we're going to get bogged down in details before we actually do anything.

Thanks, Xn! Though I have to admit that I was blown away by the one Wulfhunter found.

I second Xn F M's motion. Let's hammer out the details - cover the main issues one at a time, vote and move on to the next.

I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm about this project. Let's keep it up!

[minimoose38]

For card templates, I still have the 9 type templates I presented to the old Pokemon thread. Someone can pull those or I can repost them later. Those with the Pokemon font on them that the Abra card has would look really cool I think.

[wulfhunter667]

Originally Posted by minimoose38

For card templates, I still have the 9 type templates I presented to the old Pokemon thread. Someone can pull those or I can repost them later. Those with the Pokemon font on them that the Abra card has would look really cool I think.

Go ahead and repost here. I am not so sure about the Pokemon font though. Although interesting, it doesn't really add anything to the card. Plus, the MS and D&D versions maintained the normal font, so, let's stick with that.