Remove ads

Somebody Else [Pokémon]

Reader mode
[X] David the Squirtle

I can't not vote for the turtle. Tank complementing Leaf's choice just makes it all the better!

I dunno about restrictions yet :confused: don't have time to think.

Awesome use of the setting, by the way! :D
 
[x] David the Squirtle
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.

small question, what do restrictions do? other than restrict i mean. Edit: strengthens the pokemon eh? that all? whatever, seems cool, what happens if we let a pokemon go though (or it dies assuming this is more based on the manga) can we then have another pokemon of the same type?
 
Last edited:
emberwing said:
[x] David the Squirtle
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types.

small question, what do restrictions do? other than restrict i mean. Edit: strengthens the pokemon eh? that all? whatever, seems cool, what happens if we let a pokemon go though (or it dies assuming this is more based on the manga) can we then have another pokemon of the same type?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
wdango said:
Worse. Ironman Solo Run.



Every time your Domain Ranks Up, you get to forge one more Pact. Right now your limit is 2.

Pacts are permanent unless the Trainer or the Pokemon dies.

6-party limit is meaningless since you need an S-Rank in Domain to get 6 Pacts in the first place, which is a hard limit.

If the Trainer dies, all Pokemon that were previously Pacted to the Trainer gets a Rank-Up in Independent Action, and their Pact is dissolved.

If a Pokemon dies, the Trainer just frees up one Pact slot from their Domain with no other repercussions.

If a Trainer ever gets all of their Pokemon killed while still managing to survive, their Restrictions clear up and they can start over, although trying to convince a Pokemon to Pact with you without having a Starter is practically impossible, since you'll come across as either incompetent or malicious (from getting all your Pokemon killed) and they'll automatically consider you to not be trustworthy.

You typically have to actually work to convince a Pokemon to forge a Pact with you, since most Pokemon are not fighters, and even those that are fighters have their own interests and might not be happy to leave their life to follow some stranger. Wild Pokemon cannot be "caught", since turning Wild is permanent and irreversible. You can only Pact with civilised Pokemon, which means looking around for soldiers or mercenaries.

Of course, every Trainer and their Pokemon actually earn a decent salary from the League, depending on the Trainer's Trainer Rank, so that's a plus.

Typically it's also near-impossible to evolve without a Pact, unless the Pokemon in question has a high Rank in Independent Action, otherwise trying to leave the radius of an Everstone just means instantly turning Wild.

Pokemon soldiers or mercenaries can hold small shards of Everstone to leave their settlement and travel, forage, hunt, etc. but it's a risk because these smaller Everstones lose their effect over time, unless recharged near a primary Everstone.

So most Pokemon fighters typically are just garrisoned to their settlement as defenders in case of a Wild Pokemon attack.

Your best bet for convincing a Pokemon typically is to appeal to:
- Pokemon who hate their settlement/life
- suicidal Pokemon
- idealistic Pokemon
- materialistic Pokemon
- appealing to their desire to travel
- appealing to their desire to evolve

That's probably about it? Any questions?

Pertinent info you might wanna dissect @Magnive @Oh I am slain! @Diomedon @Skewfiend @Wootius

Do we have any other MVPs in-thread I need to tag? Haven't really been keeping track.

Also is @Sirrocco actually still active on SV?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
These notes are now threadmarked... also as a reference for me when writing the relevant Library article.

Pacts are permanent until death, if it dies, then it depends on the exact Restriction on your Domain.

For example, if your Restriction is "this Pokemon and specifically this Pokemon (the person, not the species) only", then it's a super strong buff but you can never make another Pact again even if they die.

However, if your Restriction is "non-repeating types", and that exact wording only, then the death of a Pacted Pokemon will clear up a slot, yeah.

Now, if your Restriction is "non-repeating types, ever" then even if evolution removes a type or death removes a Pact, you can never repeat that type. That would be a stronger Restriction compared to the former, though.
 
@wdango could we get a rough comparison of about how much we might get from "[] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types." vs "[] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line."?

Those seem to be the two front-runners as far as options, and one is a significantly restricted subset of the other. Some idea of what that level of additional restriction might mean would be helpful.
 
Eh, I think non-repeating types is better for a couple reasons. One, because it lets us have an eventual maximum of six Pokemon instead of capping us at five. Two, because it doesn't make us decide every Pokemon we are going to recruit ever at char gen. Like, while non-repeating types is something that we can reasonably assure ourselves of over the course of our journey and would let us scoop up most if not all prospective party members we're interested in, the family lines one doesn't do that. Family lines locks us into only these five species forever, which I foresee causing us a lot of salt in thread once we encounter a cool character that isn't from those evolutionary lines.

I'd rather have a slight boost of power and the ability to plan our party out over time rather than a large boost of power and a locked-in party from quest start. Who knows who'll we'll meet on the road that we'll want to join us, after all.
 
KidFromPallet said:
Eh, I think non-repeating types is better for a couple reasons. One, because it lets us have an eventual maximum of six Pokemon instead of capping us at five. Two, because it doesn't make us decide every Pokemon we are going to recruit ever at char gen. Like, while non-repeating types is something that we can reasonably assure ourselves of over the course of our journey and would let us scoop up most if not all prospective party members we're interested in, the family lines one doesn't do that. Family lines locks us into only these five species forever, which I foresee causing us a lot of salt in thread once we encounter a cool character that isn't from those evolutionary lines.

I'd rather have a slight boost of power and the ability to plan our party out over time rather than a large boost of power and a locked-in party from quest start. Who knows who'll we'll meet on the road that we'll want to join us, after all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Whereas I'm just the opposite. First of all, restrictions are a big deal in this world. The most powerful trainer that we know has only one pokemon, because he cranked the restriction system to its limit. If you want power, you go for restrictions - as deep as you can bear. It's a real sacrifice, with a real cost, for real benefits. Right now, in character, we're looking at a situation where there's a high chance that we and our romantic interest will both die horribly soon. The difference between a heavy restriction and a light restriction could be the difference between life and death, and we know it.

Part of this is a matter of characterization. What manner of man is Gary Oak? How much is he willing to constrain his future in order to keep his allies and loved ones alive? If he's just taking "no overlap"... then I feel like he isn't really taking this seriously. If he fails, he dies, and those that are sworn to him die. If he fails, Leaf dies, along with those sworn to *her*. To my eyes, a man in that position ought to be willing to do what it takes to live. The greater restriction... well, it has a number of aspects.
- The cost is back-weighted. Our first is going to be one of the five families anyway. Our second was reasonably likely to be a different one of the five regardless. Having our third be a different one still is a solid choice that makes good sense. It only seriously starts to squeeze down on our options in the fourth and fifth (and, yes, removes the sixth entirely). Still, that means that we'd need to increase our domain twice before it starts to be a serious issue, and Domain is not the only significant skill we have. Losing the sixth slot might feel like a lot, but we only get that slot at Domain S, which is literally peak human. We're not getting there any time soon. That being back-weighted is important, because we're looking at walking into a situation where we might not survive the next few *months*. Finding ways to power up fast, so as to more likely survive the next few months, is pretty key.
- It's not crippling. It's very restrictive, in terms of choice, but they're good choices. The starters are all good, solid pokemon. They fill a variety of roles, and the only HM they can't cover is Teleport (which leaf can manage for us if she can snag a Venonat). If we have a role that isn't filled by any of the others that we want someone to cover (healer perhaps), we can train eevee into it.
- It'll tie him to Pallet, and in a good way. It's showing a degree of respect and loyalty to the founding families, and they're likely to respond well to that.


Really, it's trading long-term options for overall power and survivability... and right now, IC, we know that we need that. This is the choice of a Gary Oak who wants to live, and who wants the people close to him to live, and who wants his hometown to not shrivel up and die. It's not the choice of a man who's willing to risk it all to be the champion (though it's not a terrible path to get to the upper ranks of power, overall) but from what I'm seeing, that's not the Gary Oak we are.

...and, OOC, there's the other side. I'd *rather* not have the great big arguments over which pokemon to pick up when. Those things get *tiring*. This locks in our choices more or less from the start, and it does so to a set that's honestly pretty solid, and it gives us the payoff for it so we aren't wasting any potential overall power by ditching all that arguing. That's not a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
The issue is that the five families restriction is both too restrictive and not restrictive enough. We're leaving the area eventually, it sounds like, and thus will have next to no ability to add more pokemon. At that point, you might as well restrict to a single pokemon, or if you are taking the very long view, a single type or family of pokemon (all eevee? Eh? Eh?)

I agree the current restriction is a tad light, but your way of tightening it just isn't appealing.
 
My perspective is I was going to go with no restriction, but the one-per-type has a minimal enough effect I'm okay with it. I want flexibility, not just strength.

I mean, I don't want us to die, but tying us to one town seems worrisome. I'd rather take Squirtle and be restricted to water types, they're everywhere.
 
Mmmmmmm.....

[X] David the Squirtle
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.

I feel like I can be argued either way to this, but I feel like the initial group is flexible enough that we can still do cool things with it, and looking at our candidates outside of these 5, rather looking at what mindset they would have (idealistic, suicidal, etc), I worry that anyone we try to pick up along the way is in more danger for doing so than those we can get here with the boost from this pact.

This really doesn't jive with the wonder of a world with so many pokemans, and I think there are a lot of cooler mons out there- I'm not sure which would be more fun to write/read, but I'm a little worried about our odds without the boost.

Edited for squirrel
 
Last edited:
I got it. We combine the "no repeats" and "6 only" into a formidable boost.

It's a limit of 5 more "which pokemon do we want" votes forever, but we gain strength within that limitation.

Happy medium?
 
I mean, I don't like to be the player who tempts fate while playing a rogue-like, but sometimes the fun in playing a rogue- like is bravely sailing up to the giant ice monster and dying horribly? And in our next life we know not to do that. I don't know how cautious is too cautious, but I do think there is a danger in over-caution.
 
Sirrocco said:
Whereas I'm just the opposite. First of all, restrictions are a big deal in this world. The most powerful trainer that we know has only one pokemon, because he cranked the restriction system to its limit. If you want power, you go for restrictions - as deep as you can bear. It's a real sacrifice, with a real cost, for real benefits. Right now, in character, we're looking at a situation where there's a high chance that we and our romantic interest will both die horribly soon. The difference between a heavy restriction and a light restriction could be the difference between life and death, and we know it.

Part of this is a matter of characterization. What manner of man is Gary Oak? How much is he willing to constrain his future in order to keep his allies and loved ones alive? If he's just taking "no overlap"... then I feel like he isn't really taking this seriously. If he fails, he dies, and those that are sworn to him die. If he fails, Leaf dies, along with those sworn to *her*. To my eyes, a man in that position ought to be willing to do what it takes to live. The greater restriction... well, it has a number of aspects.
- The cost is back-weighted. Our first is going to be one of the five families anyway. Our second was reasonably likely to be a different one of the five regardless. Having our third be a different one still is a solid choice that makes good sense. It only seriously starts to squeeze down on our options in the fourth and fifth (and, yes, removes the sixth entirely). Still, that means that we'd need to increase our domain twice before it starts to be a serious issue, and Domain is not the only significant skill we have. Losing the sixth slot might feel like a lot, but we only get that slot at Domain S, which is literally peak human. We're not getting there any time soon. That being back-weighted is important, because we're looking at walking into a situation where we might not survive the next few *months*. Finding ways to power up fast, so as to more likely survive the next few months, is pretty key.
- It's not crippling. It's very restrictive, in terms of choice, but they're good choices. The starters are all good, solid pokemon. They fill a variety of roles, and the only HM they can't cover is Teleport (which leaf can manage for us if she can snag a Venonat). If we have a role that isn't filled by any of the others that we want someone to cover (healer perhaps), we can train eevee into it.
- It'll tie him to Pallet, and in a good way. It's showing a degree of respect and loyalty to the founding families, and they're likely to respond well to that.


Really, it's trading long-term options for overall power and survivability... and right now, IC, we know that we need that. This is the choice of a Gary Oak who wants to live, and who wants the people close to him to live, and who wants his hometown to not shrivel up and die. It's not the choice of a man who's willing to risk it all to be the champion (though it's not a terrible path to get to the upper ranks of power, overall) but from what I'm seeing, that's not the Gary Oak we are.

...and, OOC, there's the other side. I'd *rather* not have the great big arguments over which pokemon to pick up when. Those things get *tiring*. This locks in our choices more or less from the start, and it does so to a set that's honestly pretty solid, and it gives us the payoff for it so we aren't wasting any potential overall power by ditching all that arguing. That's not a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Pros:
Guarantees Blastoise
Guarantees Pikachu
Strong Boost
Limits vote fighting

Cons:
No Machamp
No Pidgeot
No Steelix
No Starmie
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'll take this over only six lives.

[x] David the Squirtle
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.
 
You forgot: No Tyranitar. No Gyarados. No Ninetales.

That needs to be considered. Gotta get those style points.
 
Wysteria said:
I mean, I don't like to be the player who tempts fate while playing a rogue-like, but sometimes the fun in playing a rogue- like is bravely sailing up to the giant ice monster and dying horribly? And in our next life we know not to do that. I don't know how cautious is too cautious, but I do think there is a danger in over-caution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
OOC, we have re-dos when we die. IC, that's not a thing. It's not just "I want us to have enough power to be prepared for this", it's also "I want Gary to be the kind of guy who will do what he can to try to let the people he cares about survive."
 
Pandemonious Ivy said:
I got it. We combine the "no repeats" and "6 only" into a formidable boost.

It's a limit of 5 more "which pokemon do we want" votes forever, but we gain strength within that limitation.

Happy medium?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Do you mean, six Pokémon only, so that if one of the five we selected after this is gone, we're just permanently down to five, and so on?

Wysteria said:
I mean, I don't like to be the player who tempts fate while playing a rogue-like, but sometimes the fun in playing a rogue- like is bravely sailing up to the giant ice monster and dying horribly? And in our next life we know not to do that. I don't know how cautious is too cautious, but I do think there is a danger in over-caution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I ended my last post with a concern about how we'd make it without the restriction boost, but pragmatics, while still a concern, are not as important to me as choosing restrictions that could bring a cool, challenging synergy.

I dunno. I guess I could still have it either way, since narrative-wise I like the idea of having a tie to our home being the basis of our pact, but I also like the idea of bringing on random Mons in other towns that might wanna come along.

As an aside, I like the whole discussion about restrictions. Its like a 'deprived no armor run' vs 'items picked up must be equipped' or something like that, but with actual consequences.
 
I just find it less interesting to lock down our choices completely without having seen anything outside the starting location, there's so much cool stuff we wouldn't be able to have. I get having more power but there's got to be a middle ground.
 
[x] David the Squirtle
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.
 
Diomedon said:
The issue is that the five families restriction is both too restrictive and not restrictive enough. We're leaving the area eventually, it sounds like, and thus will have next to no ability to add more pokemon. At that point, you might as well restrict to a single pokemon, or if you are taking the very long view, a single type or family of pokemon (all eevee? Eh? Eh?)

I agree the current restriction is a tad light, but your way of tightening it just isn't appealing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can pick up the first two today. We'll probably be around the area long enough to crank our Domain up at least as far as C and get the third. Beyond that... there are Pikachu in Viridian and Eevee in Celadon (WoQM), and as long as we pick up Arthur before we leave the area, we'll have someone who can rank up to a flying transport role, which should make it pretty easy to stop by as necessary. I figure we pick up Arthur and either Elliot or Chloe for our next two (in whichever order), pick up the one we missed out of Pikachu/Eevee on the road in the appropriate city, and by the time we're domain A, we'll probably have a flying Charizard who can let us swing back home. Bulbasaur comes last mostly because Leaf already has one to start with, and we'll want to let another one grow up.

I admit, the "all eevee" plan was somewhat appealing initially, for the thematics if nothing else... but we need David's level of tank now, not "after we evolve into it", and eevee doesn't have that. Similarly, I briefly considered the "all water" plan, but it's not quite as restrictive, it locks you into certain vulnerabilities, and it feels a bit too bland for my taste. I also figured that it would be impossible to get people to vote for it because ti would lock out too many of the favorites. For obvious reasons, the starting five are pretty dense as far as "people who really like this pokemon" go.
 
Sirrocco said:
@wdango could we get a rough comparison of about how much we might get from "[] Restrict your Domain to non-repeating types." vs "[] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line."?

Those seem to be the two front-runners as far as options, and one is a significantly restricted subset of the other. Some idea of what that level of additional restriction might mean would be helpful.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay let me help the discussion by giving concrete details about what's going to happen before a fight breaks out and ruins my quest.

Non-repeating types boosts all STAB attacks by 1. That's it.

Non-repeating types forever boosts all STAB by 2.

The Pallet Set with non-repeating types (meaning you can't get multiple Eevees until you evolve one of them) boosts all STAB attacks by 1 and boosts your EX Skill.

The Pallet Set (with only one each at any one time) with non-repeating types boosts all STAB attacks by 1, increases the highest attribute by 2 (if equal, GM's choice), AND boosts your EX Skill.

The Pallet Set (with only one each forever) with non-repeating types boosts all STAB attacks by 2, increases all attributes by 2, boosts your EX Skill, AND Ranks-Up Independent Action by one Rank.

What's a boost to an EX Skill? Well. For example, Bulbasaur can now hit at long range. Charmander's FIRE is even cheaper. Squirtle gets a HP boost in addition to soak. Pikachu's Lightning Rod can now absorb ELECTR to HP. And Eevee learns Elemental Masteries faster.


KidFromPallet said:
which I foresee causing us a lot of salt in thread once we encounter a cool character that isn't from those evolutionary lines.

I'd rather have a slight boost of power and the ability to plan our party out over time rather than a large boost of power and a locked-in party from quest start. Who knows who'll we'll meet on the road that we'll want to join us, after all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually a very good point. Thanks for that. I'll keep that in mind when QM-ing if Sirro's vote wins.


Sirrocco said:
(and, yes, removes the sixth entirely)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You could remove the "no more than one of each" option, although that will weaken the Restriction.

See above for reference on the effects of what that does.


Sirrocco said:
Teleport
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Espeon could do that.

Or Eevee, if you get that Psychic Mastery.


Diomedon said:
(all eevee? Eh? Eh?)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not a bad idea, although you'll be short a flier.


Wysteria said:
they're everywhere.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah, just Pallet and Cerulean, and travelling mercenaries.

Or Wild Pokemon that you can't recruit anyway.


Sirrocco said:
I admit, the "all eevee" plan was somewhat appealing initially, for the thematics if nothing else... but we need David's level of tank now, not "after we evolve into it", and eevee doesn't have that
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, Chloe is the second-tankiest out of the 5.

Keep in mind that on top of the Restriction, your D-Rank Domain grants you 4 free attribute points that you haven't voted for yet.

If you're going for David, putting all 4 into POWER will make him super tanky, and then you could go for a physical-centric Team and just pile up on the POWER every Domain Rank-Up.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top