Thanks!

I have never actually run a Pokémon TTRPG I didn’t make myself, but having read through a few, I was always struck by how much work they demanded from the GM. Having to basically design each Pokémon the players will face seems like such a daunting task. On top of this, enemy Pokémon usually have to be run the same as those of the players, which again means a lot more work for the GM. I’m a lazy GM at heart, and that just would not be possible for those games.

I tried my best to make things as easy on the GM as I could. With some experience, you should be able to start a battle from scratch in less than a minute, and you don’t have nearly as many decision points as the other players during the battle.

Feedback is always welcome!

The issue is that for out-of-combat actions, the move die has the same function for both types of moves, so giving it a different name could lead to more confusion. Additionally, any number mentioned on the move card always refers to the move die, so having different names might again be more confusing.

I hope I made it clear that special moves have a very different procedure, and as soon as you realise that, knowing that the “move die” is the die on the move card should hopefully make things fairly clear.

Part of the impetus behind the combat rules was trying to make a singular “Special” stat not just functional but logical. If it was just going to be SpA/SpD combined, there’d be no reason not to split them. Having the split be damaging moves and effect moves solved that issue nicely, but it did necessitate very different mechanics.

Thanks for the feedback, though!

It wouldn’t. A tetrahedron has four sides, hence the name, while an Egyptian-style pyramid has five (if you include the base, otherwise it isn’t even a polyhedron).

I guess if those are your only two choices, but the VW scandal is one of those things which should be completely unforgivable to any conscientious buyer.

No, I agree that independence is necessary, not just because of “always”, but because if, as a crude example, your odds of hitting B halve each time you hit A, an infinite number of tries isn’t guaranteed to give you Shakespeare, even if the odds aren’t technically 0. My problem was that what you originally described wasn’t independence, it’s uniformity, which isn’t a prerequisite. And it’s up to 9 upvotes now so I don’t know what’s going on.

What? That’s not what independence means. They need to be independent, yes, because otherwise you might get into weird corner cases where the probably doesn’t converge to 1, but they don’t have to be equally likely. In fact, weighing the odds based on how often letters are used by Shakespeare should lower the expected timeframe. Heck, Shakespeare doesn’t use “J”, why would that key even be relevant? Where in the world do normal distributions even come into this? How does this comment have 4 upvotes? What am I missing here?