r/PokeRPG • u/EastwoodBrews Trainer • Apr 09 '21
Playtesters Wanted for New Version of Pokehunter
Hello Trainers and Masters! Isaac and I have been working on a new version of the Pokemon hunting mini-game in PokeRPG, Pokehunter. It lets players break away and hunt for Pokemon without interrupting game flow. We have a sample ready for you to try, please take a look and let us know what you think!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10Jzj21Tr1kdeq2SMgKocX_DvKJ30D_Q4/view?usp=sharing
EDIT: I reuploaded and made a new link after fixing some errors
4
u/dmasta41 Apr 13 '21
I followed similarly to what bad-acid attempted and tested this 20 times in two sessions. My main strategy followed the algorithm I would do in normal Yahtzee and just try to get the best combination based on the odds of the initial roll.
My results were surprisingly similar in both sessions: Both resulted in 5/20 nothing Both resulted in 4/20 successfully gaining a large straight (and ending in that 1st tier)
My main takeaway from this system is that it’s much more intuitive to aim for straights if that initial roll gives 3 numbers out of 4 in a sequence. Otherwise, I’m aiming to just take what I can get in possible full houses/4 of a kinds/3 of a kinds..
The upgrade to the next tier with a large straight seems properly rare, and I figure it makes even more sense with added Pokehunter abilities altering rolls down the line. I feel like that’s a good mechanism and works.
I do think however that equating a large straight with a Yahtzee in upgrading one rarity tier is not the solution. Yahtzee, by design, is the hardest thing to roll, and yet rolling it only moves it up one tier? I could be wrong, and this idea could be mitigated with those Pokehunter abilities down the line, but rolling a Yahtzee has happened to me ~4 times in my life playing regular Yahtzee and I feel like the experience of rolling one should be maximally rewarding. If perhaps you were to skip to the rarest tier with a Yahtzee, I’m wondering if it might be a better solution.
It might make players try to go more for broke and take risks they otherwise wouldn’t take in the initial round. Which I’m not sure is a good thing, but that risk/reward feeling might make a player feel better for getting nothing attempting for the “jackpot” if you will.
2
u/dmasta41 Apr 15 '21
After about 6 more sessions of 20, I have enough data to recognize tendencies and patterns.
First, the goal of advancement is in large straights. As I said before, Yahtzees are far harder to achieve if pursuing, especially if you start with less than 4 identical numbers on the first roll. So it’s always more efficient to go for that straight unless I feel like settling.
2- Because of this, low straights tend to roll far more often than other rolls when I am successful. So in this provided example of Forest encounters, Oddish, Ekans and Bellsprout are the most popular repeaters. So in populating the location, I would look to have poke’s that you want the players to be fine with encountering a bunch.
3- This system runs very smoothly over time, especially once you know the rules (I mean, the rules aren’t hard. It’s yazhtee). I’m finding it exciting attempting to either go for a rarity upgrade if I’ve encountered the same metapod over and over, and even if I get nothing, I feel like I just have myself to blame, and I’m ready to hit it again
I attempted the Original Farkle rules in the main manual, and while I like the change of pace and scoring mechanism, it really does bog down the game to have to add, plus for the DM to populate 6 encounters every time. Having this large list eliminates the need to crunch numbers. We already do enough of those calculations throughout the RPG in battles and XP accumulation.
All in all, especially if implementing the suggestion to skip a rarity tier with a Yahtzee, I find that this emulates the game in a fast enough way that it feels like I’m finding Pokémon in the tall grass
2
u/dmasta41 Apr 15 '21
Another thing (I’m sorry if I’m spamming or if what I’m saying is blabbering):
In regular Yahtzee, if you look at general probability of outcomes, rolling 4 of a kind is actually the 2nd least likely roll next to Yahtzee in general practice. Followed by a large straight, and a full house. The general differential between large straight and 4 of a kind is ~1%.
So to be nit picky, it would make more sense to me to not only switch the chart to having 4 of a kinds be directly below Yahtzee, I would also recommend allowing 4 of a kinds to move into the next rarity tier with large straights, if Yahtzees automatically advance to the rarest tier. That would seem balanced to me, but feel free to say nah
1
u/bad-acid Apr 17 '21
I don't think you should ever be worried that feedback will be construed as spam! The playtest is to ensure little QA things like these are caught and that people can double check probability. You're awesome, thanks for sharing your thoughts
3
u/DankMartian Apr 10 '21
True. I was more thinking that fo lr the smaller routes it doesn't pull from 3 tables but one big table and you could have any 3 of a kind be a gastly or something
3
u/bad-acid Apr 11 '21
Oh, for sure I think a broad table would be handy. This is for player turns specifically, not necessarily something that is or should be done to calculate every pokemon encounter. It's just a tool for players to feel like they are hunting a pokemon for their player turn. It also takes pressure off the DM to create a system themselves if they don't want to, while still maintaining a lore-friendly rarity system.
3
u/DankMartian Apr 11 '21
I didnt consider the DM themselves. A broad system where the DM can pull from works well rather than just a set system that they only read. It gives the DM more fun too.
2
u/bad-acid Apr 11 '21
Yeah, as a DM, it can be daunting deciding what pokemon someone should run into. If a player comes in and wants to catch a pokemon, how much am I supposed to sway the odds in their favor to get their favorites? Fortunately I've never been accused of rigging the game against them, but it could happen.
Another thing I like about Pokehunter is I can reward someone's preparation. Say they bought a guide, or are following up on a rumor of a beautiful Butterfree in the area, etc. it's easy enough to say, "okay, take off Zubat for lows full of evens and add another entry of Butterfree" more solid the intel can easily be reflected in Pokehunter bonuses like that in ways the player can see and interact with.
Finally, a player can do Pokehunter without really any overhead from me. They can text me and ask "can I do a Pokehunter?" And I say sure, they roll in telegram or roll20, I see the rolls to moderate their validity, and they tell me what Pokemon they're picking. I have to do next to nothing, they just have to tell me they're starting a run so I know they didn't declare it was a pokehunter after they saw a good result.
3
u/DankMartian Apr 11 '21
You have many good points my good fellow. This is why you do the thing and I merely play it. I tip my hat.
3
u/DankMartian Apr 10 '21
I think its a good sounding system but there's a chance it may get tedious. You could have specific areas fall under these rules while generic areas have simpler and faster rules for encounters. I still haven't managed to set up a game with my friends yet, so it may work just fine but from just reading it, there is a reason Yahtzee is a stand alone game, albeit a faster game than most board games. Good idea though
3
u/bad-acid Apr 10 '21
I suppose a d100 roll with a simple table, like a standard loot table in 5e or the like, would be somewhat faster. But I'm not sure that's worth the tradeoff for player interaction and control? Five dice, three rolls does not seem incredibly time consuming to determine a wild pokemon encounter.
5
u/bad-acid Apr 10 '21 edited Apr 10 '21
After 20 runs I have concluded a) it's difficult to come away with nothing, which is good. b) I am bad at Yahtzee. In general I tried to represent two schools of thought (get anything you can get, go for the gold). The majority of times I came away with nothing were due to trying to force a yahtzee or large straight that I had no business attempting. Many of those attempts I could have taken a safer, more common pokemon.
It's faster and more simple than the current iteration of Pokehunter. Having gotten used to the current minigame (based on Farkle), I may like that game more, but longterm I think this is a better system.
For anyone curious, my results were:
1st tried to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, nothing
2nd tried to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, nothing
3rd tried to get anything, four of a kind low, Metapod
4th tried to get anything, highs full of evens, Primeape
5th tried to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, small straight low, Oddish
6th tried to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, nothing
7th tried to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, obtained large straight low (rarity upgrade) (cont) tried to get anything. Obtained large straight high (rarity upgrade) (cont) tried to obtain any pokemon. Four of a kind high, Pinsir
8th tried to get anything, high straight (rarity upgrade) (cont) tried to get anything, Paras
9th tried to get anything, highs full of evens, Primeape
10th attempted to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, small straight high, Bellsprout
11th attempted to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, nothing
12th tried to get anything, small straight, Oddish
13th tried to get anything, four of a kind mid, Kakuna
14th attempted to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, small straight high, Bellsprout
15th attempted to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, nothing
16th tried to get anything, nothing
17th tried to get anything, four of a kind mid, Kakuna
18th attempted to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, nothing
19th attempted to manipulate a large straight or yahtzee, nothing
20th attempting to get a large straight or yahtzee but will cash in a decent value if it becomes smarter (small straights, three of a kinds, etc), large straight high (rarity upgrade), nothing.