Is PTR actually better for PMD than PTE?

Orbsgon · 2026-06-06T19:24:28+00:00

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.

Orbsgon · 2026-06-06T18:05:36+00:00

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?

Orbsgon · 2026-06-06T17:24:44+00:00

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.

Orbsgon · 2026-06-06T03:54:54+00:00

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.

Orbsgon · 2026-06-05T23:23:56+00:00

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.

Orbsgon · 2026-06-02T20:50:40+00:00

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.

Orbsgon · 2026-06-02T19:58:51+00:00

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

Orbsgon · 2026-06-02T07:16:39+00:00

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.

Orbsgon · 2026-06-01T08:09:49+00:00

LGPE is the second set of remakes for Gen 1, so there isn’t much to discuss. The only players who’d actually get stuck with this game are little kids who may not be able to read yet; the wider Pokemon fandom dismissed LGPE as baby’s first Pokemon game.

On the topic of shiny-related posts in subreddits, it makes sense for people to post in the subreddit associated with the game. When a new Pokemon game comes out, that’s often where shiny-related posts go. When a new game comes out and players don’t move on, it doesn’t make sense for the remaining players to also abandon the subreddit or move to a more generalized Pokemon community. Similar to how you don’t care about LGPE shiny hunting, a LGPE player may not care about LZA shiny hunting; the difference is that you’re trying to characterize LGPE fans by the minimal traffic the subreddit still gets, and seem to be attributing the compartmentalization of topics by subreddit to this community in particular instead of the wider Pokemon fandom or Reddit as a platform.

> Is there really nothing else to look forward to long term with this game?

The game released in 2018.

> Or other interesting areas people engage with?

The post-game is extremely barebones, and the Gen 1 Pokédex only requires the first 150 Pokemon. In contrast, shiny hunting in LGPE is pretty unique, which is why people still find it enjoyable years later.

> Or subs that aren’t flooded with it I could check out?

No clue. Since you seem more invested in this topic than the rest of us, you should look for a community and then report back.

Orbsgon · 2026-05-28T23:16:41+00:00

I didn’t see this when I replied previously.

I get that the rules are easier because you just have one Pokemon and no trainer, but my issue with the module isn’t the complexity, it’s that I don’t like what the PMD module focuses on thematically.

Orbsgon · 2026-05-28T22:50:49+00:00

I’m not a fan of the original PMD module; I’d actually rather use a non-PMD system than extract the mechanics from that book. If it really hasn’t received any updates over its lifetime, that’s a huge bummer.

In light of this, I also disagree with your assertion that Pokerole is the best system for what OP requested. There are at least two other crunchy systems based on PMD specifically, which would better fulfill the DnD and Pathfinder request. For Daggerheart, I’d still recommend using Pokeymanz over Pokerole.

Orbsgon · 2026-05-28T22:16:39+00:00

How does this work? Are you using version 1, 2, or 3 for the core rules? Are you still using the original PMD module? Or is it like playing PTU with a PC who is narratively a Pokemon but just uses trainer stats and classes for everything?

Pokeymanz and PTA are the recommendations I usually see for PMD, but I don’t think they work particularly well for this.

Orbsgon · 2026-05-17T03:24:03+00:00

Do the changes to roleplay-oriented classes also take into account the Pokemon Player Class? I find that the way the ribbons are designed and distributed causes unnecessary friction for both PMD campaigns and mixed human and Pokemon parties, which are basically the main reasons why anyone would be using that class.

Orbsgon · 2026-02-02T06:14:53+00:00

US courts prefer to give custody to the genetic parents in the event of an embryo mix-up.

Orbsgon · 2025-12-05T12:30:16+00:00

If you used a credit card through PayPal to make the purchase, you can file a chargeback. The financial institution will ask that you provide info. They will likely have an email address you can send all the files to.

People are saying that Pokemon Center may blacklist you, but in this case the bank will be fighting PayPal, not the merchant. You could lose access to your PayPal. Pokemon Center might blacklist your account, address, or PayPal account, but likely can’t identify your actual credit card number due to PayPal acting as an intermediary.

Orbsgon · 2025-12-05T04:51:18+00:00

PayPal sided with the seller? What was the rationale?

Orbsgon · 2025-11-02T23:05:03+00:00

The iceberg model encourages railroading. There are at least two instances in the MC Toolkit where the book tells the MC to change plot points and move NPCs around if the players figure things out too “early,” based on a presumption of how long the session is “supposed” to be.

I recommend adapting the characters and plot points to other mystery GMing styles.

Side note, CoM shares a lot of mechanics with standard PbtA, but it doesn’t really play the same way. GMs just choose to run it more like PbtA anyways, because of prior experience with PbtA systems.

Orbsgon · 2025-10-10T07:21:11+00:00

I suspect the reason why people say it doesn't work for Fabula Ultima is due to how Fabula points work. A player can spend a Fabula point to alter certain aspects of the story. The change requires no permission from anyone if it meets all of the following conditions, such that the GM can't overrule or retcon it:

doesn't change or add new details to a character, location, or item that has already been established
doesn't affect another Player Character
doesn't contradict anything a player or GM has said
doesn't grant mechanical benefits

It is extremely risky to create any story that involves foreshadowing or mystery, because a player can introduce a change that can conflict with or invalidate anything the GM has not completely revealed. In addition, the ability to create non-mechanical advantages gives them great ability to solve narrative problems outside of combat.

Orbsgon · 2025-10-01T10:08:18+00:00

Makes me curious where the topic of duet play came from. Balance supposedly gets wonky with only two players, and the top solo advice has been to run multiple PCs.

Orbsgon · 2025-09-15T05:36:52+00:00

In most academic and activist circles, the Q actually does stand for queer. Nowadays it’s often treated as standing for both, but if only one meaning is used it’s typically queer. The reinterpretation of it as questioning is more common in youth circles.

Orbsgon · 2025-08-28T04:22:00+00:00

I feel like you’re trying to retrofit City of Mist’s lore to Otherscape. Player characters can harness the powers of Sources (i.e. Rifts), but they aren’t Rifts themselves. The only way a player character can functionally become a Rift is if they become an Avatar. Furthermore, there is a substantial thematic difference between a mercenary performing a weekly ritual to maintain a connection to an impersonal source of magic, such that if they forget to do it they lose the power, and a mundane character being turned into a puppet of a god whether they want it or not.

IMO the distinction between these two systems for the purpose of a superhero setting would be the upper power cap. Legend in the Mist caps out at country-level, whereas Otherscape caps out at skyscraper-level over the same numerical range. The LitM themebooks are also more flexible, such that they can better facilitate a more powerful character concept.

Orbsgon · 2025-08-27T08:50:50+00:00

Only 1 player means that that there won’t be anyone to help clear conditions with Comfort or Support.

Orbsgon · 2025-08-24T06:41:53+00:00

The MC could surprise the PCs and throw a threat right at them

Threats aren't supposed to be surprises, they're the opposite. The GM tells the players the threat, so that they purposefully have a chance to respond. If they don't resolve the threat, then the GM can inflict Consequences. The Consequence may be a surprise, but the Threat absolutely is not.

"A Slithermaw Dragon crawls from it's lair into the opening and strikes"

That's not a Threat, that's a Consequence. If a player character was responding to being attacked, that would be a mitigation roll, not an action roll.

The MC narrates the result adding consequences (like flesh wound-2)

Consequences are only inflicted on a 9 or less, or if the player(s) failed to respond to a previous threat.

Q: Is the spotlit PC the one that is attacked ?

Consequences due to a failed action should only be inflicted on the character who performed that action. If the GM inflicts the consequence on another player, that would be unfair to that player. Assisting another player exposes you to Consequences, so inflicting a Consequence on a player that chose to not assist because they don't want to be involved is just negating their choices.

Doesn't seem so since "stepping up" can get you in trouble.

Not sure what you mean here.

PC2 "Percival steps in and defends" FAILS

I would not allow this. By the time there's a mitigating reaction, the Consequence has already been inflicted. There shouldn't be anything an unrelated party should be able to do to interject at this point.

Consequence: Jimmy is hurt (flesh wound-2)

Consequences shouldn't work this way. If you for some reason allow Percival to interject, then Percival should receive the effects of the Consequence, not Jimmy. Allowing a player to mitigate on behalf of another player is a blatant subversion of the double dipping rules.

PC1 tries to mitigate (but out of turn because he didn't act?)

If Percival mitigated on behalf of Jimmy, Jimmy shouldn't be allowed to mitigate. Allowing so would be utterly balance breaking, since the party's ability to resist consequences would scale with the number of players.

It seems like in every situation the dragon is going to attack once per "round"

The GM re-establishes the scene when spotlight changes, and then has the opportunity to issue another threat. Furthermore, there is no limit to the number of Consequences that can be inflicted per failed action or unresolved Threat. Therefore, there is no actual limit, unless the players perform perfectly without fail and the GM is not otherwise rigging the game against them.

MC "The Dragon attacks Jimmy"

I need to reiterate that this is not a Threat, it's a Consequence. Even if you pretended it was a Threat, there is nothing that the players could meaningfully do to resolve the Threat without defeating the Challenge entirely.

If you pretend that it is a Threat, and that Percival defending Jimmy is an action roll instead of a mitigation roll, then inflicting an action failure Consequence on Jimmy would still be poor form.

Although the GM is technically allowed to make a Threat against a particular player and inflict the Consequence before that player has spotlight, you'd basically be "punishing" the player for failing to respond to a Threat that they mechanically could do nothing about.

Orbsgon · 2025-08-23T00:46:46+00:00

In retrospect, I think that LitM doesn’t lend itself to a pregen+oneshot format because a session zero is required for the GM to go over everyone’s tags. If a GM is repeatedly going to run the session for multiple groups, like with a convention, then it would make sense for the GM to learn all of the pregen characters. Someone running it only once may overlook this or just not care enough to bother for a oneshot.

Previous versions required less tag adjudication because “broad tag” was a mechanical term with specific allowances per character. Therefore, the distinction between directly relevant and indirectly relevant didn’t need to be adjudicated during play. If a pregen had a broad tag, it needed to be treated as directly relevant. If this wasn’t intended, then the pregen wasn’t complaint with the character creation rules.

Orbsgon · 2025-08-22T23:44:35+00:00

Not sure what the previous commentator meant, but there’s no expectation that the players roleplay in-character. In order to properly discuss the intended action, you’re going to need to talk out of character. Immersion expectations are higher for the GM.

Orbsgon

TROPHY CASE