>>97064393
so what the fuck is the resource system, or is this like the board game where its just weak thing + die roll gets big thing until you have mewto

File: pkmap.jpg (1.26 MB, 1800x1320)

1.26 MB JPG

Replying people on the old thread:

>>97040628
>might speed things along to use the standard pokemon TCG cards for it
Actually, I did that a couple of times while playtesting the early versions of the game. Fortunately, I have a collect of at least 1 copy of each of the first 150 pokemons (from the TCG first edition), so I would use that. However, for the bulk of the game I was using a computer program (only created the physical cards for pokemons players would capture)

I considered making a fully physical prototype that way, but there was just too much information I needed to put on the cards

>your map here >>97039926 (You) flips around the location of Silph Co. and the Rocket Hideout
Thanks for pointing that out! Pic related is the fixed version

I originally made the map positions many years ago, and only filled the image/names last week. Hence why the mix-up

>Rock Tunnel and Mt. Moon being branches is also a bit odd
They are not fully a branch, the idea is that the branch is delving deeper into them for the item, while the first steps are the actual path

>Power Plant absent. Seafoam Islands being missing
I might add them later on, but right now the only purpose of locations is to add items on the ground. And since IIRC you don't need to go to either in the game, they really only serve for the legendary birds which is a random encounter on the level 4 deck

>>97044992
>>97045013
Its the gen I had when growing up, since I quickly swapped pokemon for MtG. I'm actually re-playing Crystal atm and thinking about adding Johto pokemons (or maybe just make a Johto version), but 150 is already A LOT

File: 52 - Meowth (x2).png (283 KB, 672x936)

283 KB PNG

>>97064544
>so what the fuck is the resource system
There's no elaborate resource system. Arguably you have money to manage but its really only minor and to make sure players have access to basic items regardless of luck. The main "resource" per se is time/XP - the idea is that you want to be earning XP every turn, so you make your turn trying to always finish either with a wild encounter or a gym battle

>weak thing + die roll gets big thing until you have mewto
but I guess in a nutshell, its this. Pokemon its already very complex with all the type advantages, up to 2 types per pokemon and a massive number of 150 pokemons. Its hard from a design perspective to inject too much additional complexity to a game with those requisites (note that I ended up removing some stuff from the original version)

Most of the games I design are euro-style with several resources to manage and a lot more complexity and depth, but not every game is made for that. Sometimes what you need is... a simple roll to move

>>97064393
So, what makes this more than Master Trainer but with typing?

File: 129 - Magikarp (x4).png (560 KB, 672x936)

560 KB PNG

>>97065506
>what makes this more than Master Trainer but with typing?
So basically that's what the game is aiming at. Being what Master Trainer was supposed to be, but actually GOOD - cause though I don't remember much about that game's mechanics, me and everyone I talk to remembers the game being super underwhelming and meh. In fact, just this weekend I was talking to a fellow game designer and he said he bought the game recently for nostalgia's sake and found the game to be unplayable

So I guess being playable is a big difference

Though I would list:
>typing IS a huge deal (its the core battle mechanic of pokemon)
>pokemons typically having 2~3 adds variation to the game
>using D20 instead of D6 making battles more unpredictable
>pokemons have a different appearance rate
>you level up your pokemons, not just evolution
>evolution also is functional (I remember Master Trainer's being clunky)
>players have more control on their movement (including early gaming to Digglet's cave or south to Cinnabar)

Overall, the game is flowing WAY closer to the Kanto experience than I remember that old Master Trainer

The idea is the same, the execution is quite different

Bumpty bump

File: pkmap.jpg (1.42 MB, 1800x1320)

1.42 MB JPG

Posting updated map

1st playtest of this new version of the game happening tonight!!

Unfortunately I got too many ppl so I will have to adapt the game for 5 players

File: WhatsApp Image 2025-11-27(...).jpg (76 KB, 1280x720)

76 KB JPG

First playtest happened today w/ 4 players (starters + pikachu)

Game was fun but unfortunately it takes way too long for 4 players (we played for ~4 hours and the game was somewhere around 70%)

Math is a bit clumsy/tricky, I might make some tokens to help w/ it

Next playtest on Saturday!

File: WhatsApp Image 2025-11-28(...).jpg (210 KB, 1599x899)

210 KB JPG

After yesterday's playtest with friends, decided to try a solo run today

Took me 118 turns (102 minutes) to beat the 8 gyms

Though I was quite concerned in keeping track of turns/time/making milestone updates, it was pretty fun to play even by myself

Next playtest will be 2 players which is the ideal amount :D

>>97076993
Other than playing with your friends what's your end goal with this? Since you share it on 4chan I assume you want other people to play it.
If you make an indie video game you can put it on Steam and Itch.io but board games require physical production plus the very obvious problem that you don't have the licensing for the theme of your game.

File: hitmonlee.png (2.22 MB, 1920x2115)

2.22 MB PNG

>>97077883
>Since you share it on 4chan I assume you want other people to play it
Showcasing your own designs to other people is always satisfying, but I'm sharing because people might find it interesting (pokemon is a famous/commonly liked theme), and because people might give relevant input (last thread people pointed out a few fixes/improvements to the map/board)

>what's your end goal with this?
>board games require physical production plus the very obvious problem that you don't have the licensing for the theme of your game
Honestly, the goal is really just to play with friends lol. Or more specifically, to make a game I enjoy playing

I'm actively seeking to make a living off game design, to an extend I actually quit my day job earlier this year to focus on this goal. For a long time, I felt like this project wasn't worth my time because of IP/license limitations. But lately I have been revaluating how I spend time and money, and realize that investing in making my own board game isn't really that different from spending money on a brand new board game or spending dozens of hours on a new video game

Plus, as a designer, it ends up being a great design exercise, because working with the limitations of an existing IP makes you find innovative way to deal with challenges

>>97064546
Are there rival battles?
Maybe first player to get to an I loots the place, to add competition for the rare resource. There could be rival battles if two players get to the same dungeon/maze/gauntlet (perhaps an area a player just cleared takes half movement points since there are no encounters left)

File: Hitmonchan.600.2753972.jpg (75 KB, 600x600)

75 KB JPG

>>97081576
>Are there rival battles?
Not exactly

There are a few copies of a card called "Challenge", which forces the active player (who drew the card) to challenge another player to a battle. In that sense, the rivals are the other players. We actually had some interesting moments regarding this on the first playtest, and the majority of the players said they liked this card and would like to see it more often (so I might add more copies to the deck)

I have been tinkering with the idea of making that card work differently when playing solo, making it more of a standard rival. I haven't nailed down the mechanics yet, but maybe the idea would be that when you draw that card you fight with a rival "NPC"

But I'm not focusing that much at solo play atm since the game is preferably intended for 2-3 players

>Maybe first player to get to an I loots the place, to add competition for the rare resource
Yes, that is how the I works. There are currently 12 items scattered around the map (latest version here >>97070020), and only the first player to get there gets the item

This is one of the main drives of early game, which is the race for these items. You actually gain items from the same random item deck when beating a gym, so each run you get at least 7~8 random items. So getting additional ones is great but also not super crippling if you fall behind on that

With 4 players I felt like only 12 items was not enough. I'm tinkering with a mechanic of allowing each item spot ( I ) to be picked twice (1st and 2nd player to get there). Though that would be only for 4 and maybe 3 players, while for 2 players it would really be just 1 item per spot first come first served

>There could be rival battles if two players get to the same dungeon/maze/gauntlet
Players asked about actively challenging others, but I feel like giving that power to players is a slippery slope since it might be an exploitable way to earn quick XP

>>97082366
>but maybe the idea would be that when you draw that card you fight with a rival "NPC"
That seems like it'd be pretty easy to arrange due to how you were handling cards. Could easily just be tracking the number of times you've drawn the card, and then drawing X+1 cards of X rank.
So the first rival battle is 2 rank 1 cards, then 3 rank 2, and so on until it's 6 rank 5.

That would make the rival's team pretty weird since it'd constantly be switching from available encounter pools.
Depending on how you handle gyms, that system could potentially be used as a way to have a more solid rival, or just other minor NPC trainers.

>Players asked about actively challenging others, but I feel like giving that power to players is a slippery slope since it might be an exploitable way to earn quick XP
Could add some sort of cost to it. Since basic items can be bought, that would mean there's a currency system. Could potentially just say that a battle like that mid-dungeon requires spending potions or the like. That way it's possible, but then even if a player wins the battle, it cost them something in the process.
That does make money a more important resource, but the cost just needs to be high enough where to players battling eachother over and over for XP aren't going to have the money to catch better pokemon in later areas.

Also, do you have anything for trading established? Could potentially allow that if two players land at the same city. Less sure if that needs any sort of cost, unless you implement some sort of boost to encourage trading.

File: images.jpg (12 KB, 205x245)

12 KB JPG

Played 2nd playtest (2 players) tonight. We didn't finish but my friend insisted we saved the game's state to finish the match another time

It definitely flows better for 2 players

>>97083049
>would make the rival's team pretty weird since it'd constantly be switching from available encounter pools
I was originally planning to keep the same team - each time you "increase" the team's size, you would pick a new pokemon and stick with it. So each run the rival would be different, but it would stay constant during the same run (though his pokemons would also evolve)

>how you handle gyms, that system could potentially be used as a way to have a more solid rival, or just other minor NPC trainers
Currently, all NPC trainers have only 1 pokemon, with exception of the league that is a team of 4 (since you gotta beat 1 for each league member). With that in mind, rival would probably be best kept at max party of 3

>Could add some sort of cost to it
>requires spending potions
What if something gives the players a "challenge token"? Its like a resource you get that exclusively lets you challenge other players - the player with the token actually forcing the other player (much like how rivals/trainers force battles in the video game)

Challenge tokens could be earned throughout the game, like every 2~3 gyms

>Also, do you have anything for trading established?
Right now its free trade - you can trade items and pokemon freely as long as you are both on the same spot

I like the idea of giving some kind of boost for pokemon trade (since that's a thing in the game). Could give some XP bonus but maybe lock the pokemon to you (to avoid exploiting)

>>97086089
>What if something gives the players a "challenge token"?
That could work out, though I'd almost suggest making there multiple ways of getting them. Like have some Challenge cards in the wild pokemon deck, where if you draw one, you get to keep it to challenge someone later, and then you immediately draw a card to resolve the wild battle as normal.

>Could give some XP bonus but maybe lock the pokemon to you (to avoid exploiting)
Depending on if you've already got some sort of XP-boosting item card, that could be an option to draw the mechanics from. Although even that might just encourage two players to conspire to just trade their entire teams for a bunch of free XP.
I suppose it's worth asking how you were handling trade evos.

Another thought that occurred is if you're doing anything with the idea of filling out the dex. I doubt a game would go on long enough for anyone to get close, but doing something like giving players a free item card for hitting 10 different species (or some other benchmark values) could also be a way of encouraging trading in more minor ways, since it'd give players another potential reason for wanting to swap.

File: _ Trade.png (387 KB, 672x936)

387 KB PNG

>>97086580
>"challenge token"
>multiple ways of getting them
So I will probably keep the cards in the wild pokemon decks as they are, and in fact, probably increase its ratio by adding 3~4 copies across the decks

However a wild idea I had just now after reading your post is: if there were additional "challenge tokens" in the board, the same way there were the I spots for items? First one to get there gets the token and can use whenever

Additionally, I could put those spots exactly where the rival happens in the original video game, for extra juice

>worth asking how you were handling trade evos
No trade evolution. I always thought those suck, and I get the impression most people feel that way too. Right now, all pokemons that would evolve by trade instead evolve normally by level, so the only special type of evolution is through evolution stone (though note there's only 1 type of stone for all pokemons)

Regarding trade, its worth mentioning that there are 6~8 pokemons that are only obtainable through "npc trade". Those are come up as a random npc asking you to make a blind trade with him, and if you do, you get his pokemon (pic related). This are typically worth if you got some spare useless mon

>encourage two players to conspire to just trade their entire teams for a bunch of free XP
Could implement that starters can't be traded, making trading the whole team less ideal since people typically make a team to complement their own starter

>doing anything with the idea of filling out the dex
Originally that would be a multi-run goal. As in keeping track of all pokemons you got throughout all of your runs, which would also add to replayability since you would try to get different mons each run

Though a bonus could be something to look into. I also considered specialization, like getting a buff if you have 3+ pokemons of the same type or something like that

>>97087085
>So I will probably keep the cards in the wild pokemon decks as they are, and in fact, probably increase its ratio by adding 3~4 copies across the decks
For some reason I assumed they were in the item deck.
But yeah, adding more copies is good, especially if it's a resource that can be used later rather than something to act on immediately. And adding the cards to the item deck or otherwise just giving the players a challenge token when they grab an item might be an option. Same with placing them around the board.
Might not necessarily put them exactly where the rival always is, but it could be a way to add something to some of the blank spaces around the map that don't get much use otherwise.

>No trade evolution. I always thought those suck, and I get the impression most people feel that way too.
Eh, I think it has its place. Although in the context of the games, I always felt that trade evos would be better if they were just a way of getting the evolutions early. Like being able to get a Gengar as soon as you evolve Haunter via trading, but still being able to get a Gengar if you're willing to wait until level 40, just as an example.
I will say that it might make more sense to have the trade evos just be stone evos instead, so that there's still another resource needed to get them to their final stage. Only having one type of evo stone is definitely for the best though.

>As in keeping track of all pokemons you got throughout all of your runs, which would also add to replayability since you would try to get different mons each run
>Though a bonus could be something to look into.
Yeah. Might make things tricky, but having rewards for hitting benchmarks would add a reward for going after a wider variety of mons.

One other thought that occurs. Are the fossil mons handled like other wild mons, or are they treated more like items?

File: stone evolutions.jpg (2.12 MB, 3360x2808)

2.12 MB JPG

>>97089841
>being able to get a Gengar as soon as you evolve Haunter via trading, but still being able to get a Gengar if you're willing to wait until level 40, just as an example
Never thought of that, but that would be 200% better. I like that idea a lot for the video game

>might make more sense to have the trade evos just be stone evos instead
There are already a lot of pokemons that use stone evolution, and the way the game function, its good to have 1 but as soon as you have 2+ that requires it, it becomes cumbersome since you need to grind extra money for that stone (unless you were lucky to drop 2 stones from the random item pile)

Right now I think I have a good amount of stone evolutions going on

PS: worth mentioning that stone evolution in the game right now is a quick way to get stronger, since pokemons get a +3 attack buff (similar to 3 levels) from that evolution without really any downside (other than requiring/consuming the stone)

>Are the fossil mons handled like other wild mons, or are they treated more like items?
Fossil pokemons are treated like... fossils. There are 3 copies of a fossil item, bringing any of them to Cinnabar lets you trade to a fossil pokemon of your choice (kabuto, omanyte or aerodactyl)

Though I've been considering buffing them cause right now they feel a bit underwhelming for a late game acquisition

File: gary.png (394 KB, 640x479)

394 KB PNG

>>97089841
In regards to items, here is the full list of the item deck (45 cards):

>2x Voltorbs
>1x Electrode
Worth mentioning they have a substantially low catch rate compared to similar pokemons. Also, they can't come from gym rewards (only items you pick up on the floor)

>4x 2 great balls
+5 catch bonus
>4x 1 ultra ball
+10 catch bonus

>1x Master ball
>3x Fossil
>4x Hyper Potion
>5x Evolution stones

>3x Rare candy
1 free level

>8x different TMs
You can give any TM to any pokemon, giving it a move of a different type it didn't have coverage before. The move's damage is equal to that pokemon's highest move damage

>3x X-Attack
>3x X-Defense
Buffs your mom for 1 combat/dice roll, useful to finish off strong leaders like Sabrina (or very important to beat the indigo league if you're doing that)

>2x bycicle vouchers
Exchange in Cerulean for a +1 movement buff

>>97090080
>Fossil pokemons are treated like... fossils. There are 3 copies of a fossil item, bringing any of them to Cinnabar lets you trade to a fossil pokemon of your choice (kabuto, omanyte or aerodactyl)
>Though I've been considering buffing them cause right now they feel a bit underwhelming for a late game acquisition
One option there could be just making the fossils have extremely good coverage, if you don't want to make them that much stronger numerically. A lot of mons seem to just have moves of their types and maybe a normal move on top of that, so doing something like giving Omastar an ice move, Kabutops a ground move, and Aerodactyl a Dragon move could be a way to make them more appealing.
Sort of like a bonus TM on the fossil mons for jumping through the extra hoops, if that makes sense.

>>97090103
>Voltob/Electrode in the item deck
Hilarious.
>>3x X-Attack
>>3x X-Defense
Not sure what the distinction is there, if it's just a modifier to the roll in either case.

Unsure if any other item suggestions stand out, aside from potentially putting a few Challenge cards in the item deck.

File: fossils.jpg (692 KB, 2016x936)

692 KB JPG

>>97090450
>One option there could be just making the fossils have extremely good coverage, if you don't want to make them that much stronger numerically
Funny you suggest that, cause I literally just updated them to also have a Rock type move (thus, making them better due to greater coverage, especially given that rock moves are actually a bit rare on gen 1)

I haven't played enough to see anyone get those, though that might be just bad luck in not getting fossils early game. Note that I made the concious decision of the fossil pokemon be neither pre-determined by the item nor random, cause I figured that giving people the option to choose which one they want kinda buffs them (since they can go for the one that adds better coverage to their overall teams)

>A lot of mons seem to just have moves of their types and maybe a normal move on top of that
The majority have 2 attack types, though not necessarily normal. A good amount of final evolutions have 3 moves. A tiny select number of non-normal pokemons have only 1 type (Alakazam and Machamp being the biggest examples, though they also have some of the highest damaging moves in the game making them great TM recipients)

>Voltob/Electrode in the item deck
>Hilarious
Not even a meme, I just think its an iconic thing about them. In fact they don't even appear on the wild pokemon deck, they only come from items. I got a Voltorb last night as my first item, I was actually excited to capture it but sucked cause I had squirtle and got my ass zapped to death

Electrode has the unique advantage of using Sonic Boom (which the game treat as "no type"). Plus, getting them is a "free" encounter/XP

>Not sure what the distinction is there, if it's just a modifier to the roll in either case
X-Attack gives D&D advantage (roll 2 D20, pick the highest), while X-Defense gives flat +3. Its meant to be that way so you can use both together. Also worth mentioning that X-Attack can be bought in Celadon but X-Defense not

File: full list.jpg (6.89 MB, 1512x8775)

6.89 MB JPG

>>97090450
>A lot of mons seem to just have moves of their types and maybe a normal move on top of that
If you wanna check out / give specific inputs, here is the complete list of all pokemons

One important thing though is that their base power should not be compared, since its more determined due to balance reasons (when taking in account what deck it is on, capture rate, evolutions, etc), rather than whether pokemon A is stronger than pokemon B in the video games

A more accurate measurement of power is the full total power (base power of the moves + "max level" on the top right corner), which is really the pokemon's full potential

>>97090519
>>97090637
One thing that stands out from the list there is that Omanyte should probably have Constrict in place of Horn Attack for its normal move.
Chansey having Double-Edge also feels a little odd. I know that the TCG had it there, but Egg Bomb might be a more suitable choice. That's mostly just flavor concerns though.

But yeah, it does seem like there's a good mix of types, and I think it works for most mons to have 1-2 useful attacking types and then possibly a normal move on top of that.
I also see what you mean about the fossils being useful for just having strong Rock moves. Since the only other sources are Geodude and Onix. I think the method of needing to pull a specific item and then bring it somewhere else is going to limit the chances that they show up at all.

Also interesting to see that Clefairy/Jigglypuff are using Fairy-type interactions despite it otherwise being absent from the game, but I think it is good since it helps add some favorable matchups to all of the poison types around.
Though looking at it more, if I understand the rules correctly, a Ghost weakness is basically meaningless, since only Psychic/Ghost types are weak to Ghost, and the only Ghost line is weak to both. So the +4/-4 just cancels out? Similar case for Ghost and Normal types actually, since they'd mutually resist.

File: 0105Marowak (ghost).png (609 KB, 672x936)

609 KB PNG

>>97090855
>Omanyte should probably have Constrict in place of Horn Attack for its normal move
Odd choice indeed... I thought maybe I made an error when making the cards, but just checked the design files and I had indeed put down "Horn Attack". No idea why

Will probably change, especially because I'm reprinting it to reflect the buff on the evolution

>Chansey having Double-Edge also feels a little odd
When in doubt, I typically go to bulbapedia and check the learn set of the pokemon. Dougle Edge was listed for Chansey but Egg Bomb was not...

>1-2 useful attacking types and then possibly a normal move on top of that
We take the normal attack for granted, but not having a normal move can be a pain in the ass sometimes when all your other attacks are being resisted. Other than rock, normal is a pretty safe option for a backup move

>Clefairy/Jigglypuff are using Fairy-type interactions despite it otherwise being absent from the game
Originally I chose to go that route to make them stronger against Lance's Dragonite. But the poison weakness is also nice

Note that Magnemite & Magneton are also steel, which makes them actually pretty solid choices. I actually ended up removing their normal attack to nerf them

>Ghost weakness is basically meaningless, since only Psychic/Ghost types are weak to Ghost
Well yes. Gen 1's ghosts are kinda weird that way (IMO it would make way more sense for them to be solely Ghost)

> So the +4/-4 just cancels out?
That actually happens quite often. If both pokemons have resistance against each other (or weakness), it cancels out

Though one thing I'm actually very happy with is how much the typing is relevant for match-ups. As you can see, most weak pokemons have power ~3, while the strongest ones are at ~9. Meanwhile, if you get resistance against the enemy AND attack their weakness, the +8 buff means that a recently caught basic pokemon can go to +11 bonus on the roll (against the flat +9 of most final evolutions)

>>97090931
>Dougle Edge was listed for Chansey but Egg Bomb was not...
If I remember right, that's because in Gen 1 it was a TM that only Chansey and the Exeggcute line could learn.

>We take the normal attack for granted, but not having a normal move can be a pain in the ass sometimes when all your other attacks are being resisted.
Oh sure, I'm not discounting it. I'm just observing that the norm for most pokemon is very minimal coverage. In a lot of cases the normal coverage seems like it's enough to avoid any sort of resists. And I think it's also a positive that in a lot of cases the Normal attack is lower power in order to account for that added flexibility.
I mostly brought it up in the context that giving a pokemon more elemental coverage by default is another potential lever for balancing things.

>Note that Magnemite & Magneton are also steel, which makes them actually pretty solid choices. I actually ended up removing their normal attack to nerf them
Ah, didn't catch that on my first pass. But that does seem like a fine way to introduce some more variation here and there.
>Though one thing I'm actually very happy with is how much the typing is relevant for match-ups.
It does work out to a major factor where it applies. I may just not have the best sense for it because I'm just viewing all of this in terms of the raw numbers rather than how it actually works out during play.
A lot of the weirdness here feels like it's largely due to Gen 1 already having a lot of weirdness where there were so few ghosts and dragons, none of the bugs knew bug moves to actually handle psychic types, and so on.

File: trainers.jpg (1.48 MB, 3360x1872)

1.48 MB JPG

Decided to try something different for trainers - instead of having the same card back as other cards on each deck, trainers will have their own trainer depicted on the card's back and their pokemon on the front once you draw the card

The idea here is that, like the game, you would see the trainer ahead of you, and sometimes you might choose to go for it or not (depending what you got going on in your turn)

The pokemon on the front side will of course match the trainer but won't be always the same for the same type of trainer - a bug catcher might have a caterpie or a weedle or any other bug

>>97091655
>Gen 1 it was a TM that only Chansey and the Exeggcute line could learn
I see. Though gen 1 is what I most played, I'm also not 100% knowledgeable about it. Lately I have been watching a lot of youtube videos about it and I have been learning quite a lot of things I didn't know about the original games

>giving a pokemon more elemental coverage by default is another potential lever for balancing things
Yes! The game is so simple/raw in terms of card design, that I have to be creative to balance things. In that sense, I can nerf a card by making its normal attack a lower damage (or removing it entirely, like Magneton), while as you mentioned, I can buff a card by adding a 3rd move of another type (and that move's strength is also something I can tweak)

>A lot of the weirdness here feels like it's largely due to Gen 1 already having a lot of weirdness
Yes... one of the challenges of this project is making a game through to Gen 1, which though is a great game, its definitely quite unbalanced in many ways (including the ghost/dragon examples you mentioned). If I was creating a brand new game from scratch, I would have made the types (both in quantity as well as resistance/weakness) probably quite symmetrical (I'm a big MtG fan so that's my default way to approach games)

File: trainers2.jpg (3.3 MB, 2016x5148)

3.3 MB JPG

Here is the breakdown of all trainers

(previously, trainers were random and would just be the next pokemon in the deck +2 attack. But by already establishing them, I'm hoping to reduce math holdups and improve game flow)

Bumpty bump

Playtesting later tonight with a fellow game designer

>>97092908
>>97093277
One thing I'm a bit unclear on here is how you organize the trainer's teams. Like would the Bug Catchers just have a shrunken-down version of their teams on the opposite face of the card? I'm not quite sure how the formatting is meant to work.

Those Rocket Grunts also seem pretty cracked in terms of teams.

File: WhatsApp Image 2025-12-02(...).jpg (195 KB, 1599x899)

195 KB JPG

>>97103423
>I'm a bit unclear
Sorry my bad

The way it works is that in pretty much all NPC battles, be it a random trainer or a gym leader, the NPC only uses 1 pokemon. You as a player can use as many pokemons as you want/need

This seems silly but since combat in this game is so flakey/swingy, you typically have 1~2 pokemons that have good advantage against the enemy and even they typically only have like 40~60% chance of winning (especially against gym leaders that are very strong). Therefore, a single strong pokemon can sweep your whole team if you end up rolling poor on your best option

With that in mind, the way that those trainers here >>97093277 work is that each deck (based on the left card, which is the "back" of the trainer card):
>Level 1 deck (green) have 5 trainers (3 bug catchers, 2 youngsters)
>Level 2 deck (green/blue) have 10 trainers of 4 different types
>Level 3 deck (blue) have 10 trainers of 3 different types
>Level 4 deck (blue/red) have 10 trainers (all rocket grunts)

Therefore, you can actually tell there's a trainer incoming (which mimics how in the game, you see them stand in the way). You can't, however, know exactly what pokemon they will bring out. The level 1 bugcatcher can either use a caterpie, a weedle or a metapod (but it will be only 1 pokemon). As you get to level 4, you are less likely to predict what you're facing since they all have the same Rocket back

Does it make more sense now?

PS: I playtested again tonight with a fellow design, reviews were pretty positive (he's a big fan of pokemon), we might play again next week

The new trainer method worked pretty well (definitely better than what I previously had)

Pic related was my team (I lost, only 4 badges while he got to 8)

File: download.jpg (1.58 MB, 2688x1872)

1.58 MB JPG

>>97103423
>>97103812
To clarify a little bit more on trainers & gym leaders
>Both are only 1 pokemon
>Trainers can vary what kind of pokemon (depending on the trainer class), and only give +$50 reward
>Gym leaders always use the same pokemon, and not only give the +$50 reward (and the badge), but also a random item

Pic related for example. You simply need to score 20 with one of your pokemons to get through Brock (his Onix uses a normal-type attack). A Bulbasaur or Squirtle will do 3~4 grass/water damage +4 due to Onix's weakness. Therefore, you typically need a 12+ on a D20. Or if you get to Ivysaur/Wartortle, you only need a 10+

While a 10+ is easy enough, its quite possible you might miss. And that's it - your best choice pokemon is dead, and your Rattatas and Pidgeys and Caterpie will probably need a natural 20 to beat Onix after that. Thus, ideally, you need at least a 2nd pokemon with advantage (any water, grass or fighting will do)

Starting on Misty, gym leaders get stronger but they also attack using their own type. So the same Bulbasaur that needed a 12+ on Onix, now actually need a 10+ on Starmie (+4 damage +4 on starmie's weakness +4 for resisting water). This means that up to Erika, its a lot easier to get at least a +4 type bonus on 2~3 pokemons, and potentially you will have at least one roll with a +8 type bonus (like the mentioned case)

However, from Koga onwards, the gym leader's power gets to a point that only have type advantage is typically not enough. Sabrina is the biggest example of this, since in gen 1 Psychic was pretty naughty as a type

Back to trainers, they are typically weaker but the added variety means you might not really be prepared to that particular match up (also, since you find them while walking around, you might not have your full team - as opposed to gym battles that you always use the entire team)

>>97103812
>>97103892
>The way it works is that in pretty much all NPC battles, be it a random trainer or a gym leader, the NPC only uses 1 pokemon.
Ah, alright. That's the part I was getting mixed up on. I thought the rocket grunts just had 5 whole pokemon which seemed like a lot. Makes more sense if it's just the trainer class and their single team member on the other side.
The ranking makes sense at least. And having the trainer class telegraph the type also seems like a good choice, Likewise with Team Rocket being the upper rank filling out some of the later-game dungeons and having a wider team variety.

I will say that if you wanted to be a bit more mean with the gym leaders ramping up in difficulty, giving Giovani a Rhydon might be better than Nidoqueen. With how many pokemon have Normal moves as the standard, having a Normal resist would be very valuable there. It would open up a bigger weakness to Grass, but that might be more balanced than a weakness to Psychic and making that type even more appealing.