[Meta thread] Iron's PokeRole Adventure: The Skull Ruins

[Dragonstrike]

I'm not opposed to the idea. If we can just say that they know it and that's it I wouldn't mind, but I feel like I won't need it and therefore we might as well save our time on other story-continuing stuff.

Yeah, you can add it to their movepools if ya want.

[Dragonstrike]

If we start spreading pokemon with Rock Smash around, people are going to start asking questions, figuring out that someone's found a Rock Smash HM.

*coughThat'llBeWhatShivaWillDoInModerateAmountIfYouWantToBeBlatantButAsSaidIt'llAllHappenWithApprovalFromTheLeagueAnd/OrTelperionUnicough**coughIWantThatScholarshipForHerPleasecough*

As I said, totally fine with League approval.

[Dragonstrike]

I'm fine with all these restrictions, except for that one about outright not teaching it to disobediant Pokemon - something like taking a look at how disobediant the particular Pokemon in questions is and then decide in the specific case whether it shall learn the move or not sounds more fair to me. For example, something with 3 points in Disobediance vs. 0 points in Loyalty shouldn't get the move, but something like 4 Disobediance vs. 2 Loyalty or 2 Disobediance vs 0 Loyalty can.

True, a disobedient pokemon with some loyalty is probably less likely to just use the move whenever they feel like using it...how about this then:

1-2 Disobedience: needs 1 Loyalty
3-4 Disobedience: needs 2 Loyalty
5 Disobedience: needs 3 Loyalty

Or in other words, Disobedient pokemon should have a Loyalty score greater than or equal to half of their Disobedience rounded up.  Sound fairer?

Yes, but Ven's equally paranoid about remaining disguised/undetected when he wants to, and given his criminal origins and working alongside the Shadow Triad, so him going off to sell those Pokémon on the Black Market SECRETLY isn't an instant fail/bad end for the party. Given that Ven's succesfully raised an Arbok, Noibat into a Noivern, and has decently bonded with several Dragons and Disobedient bugs, the boy would trust that when he says he can handle those Pokemon, they SHOULD be able to trust him with at least that. I and Ven want to sell those HM Pokémon for a marked up price since the more Poke I have, the more flexible I can be for spending in the future, and I REALLY don't like be stonewalled in making muns unless the DM specifically is the one doing it or its a plain bad idea (which I don't think it is, in this case).

Short term problems/benefits can still lead to long term consequences.  It's not that Nathan doesn't think Ventus can't handle the pokemon, it's more that he'd rather not risk a large number of people learning that there's another Rock Smash HM out there.

[PhantomUnderYourDesk]

This sounds more fair, yes, I'd agree to that ruling. Somehow I'm feeling though that people will find out that a HM Rock Smash has resurfaced anyway sooner or later, as we cannot keep it secret forever and Nathan said somewhere that he'd like to give the HM to League's property. I'd agree that it might be not much of a good idea to simply trade a Pokemon with a HM-move in the open market, but doing so with massive amounts of secrety and safety (EDIT: Which Ventus emphasized) could be done if it won't be overdone. I decided to trade Marowak without Rock Smash simply because I don't think Shiva would do that and I don't want her to dabble in shady actions, and the increased profit I'd get is something I can obtain elsewhere.

An end could be put to this semi-conflict if you'd just rule that a Pokemon with a definite HM move won't be accepted in a trade even on the Black Market or the additional profit one'd gain isn't worth it, Iron. Your discretion. Sounds like an illogical idea to me.

[Lord Windos]

I'm fine with all these restrictions, except for that one about outright not teaching it to disobediant Pokemon - something like taking a look at how disobediant the particular Pokemon in questions is and then decide in the specific case whether it shall learn the move or not sounds more fair to me. For example, something with 3 points in Disobediance vs. 0 points in Loyalty shouldn't get the move, but something like 4 Disobediance vs. 2 Loyalty or 2 Disobediance vs 0 Loyalty can.

True, a disobedient pokemon with some loyalty is probably less likely to just use the move whenever they feel like using it...how about this then:

1-2 Disobedience: needs 1 Loyalty
3-4 Disobedience: needs 2 Loyalty
5 Disobedience: needs 3 Loyalty

Or in other words, Disobedient pokemon should have a Loyalty score greater than or equal to half of their Disobedience rounded up.  Sound fairer?

Yes, but Ven's equally paranoid about remaining disguised/undetected when he wants to, and given his criminal origins and working alongside the Shadow Triad, so him going off to sell those Pokémon on the Black Market SECRETLY isn't an instant fail/bad end for the party. Given that Ven's succesfully raised an Arbok, Noibat into a Noivern, and has decently bonded with several Dragons and Disobedient bugs, the boy would trust that when he says he can handle those Pokemon, they SHOULD be able to trust him with at least that. I and Ven want to sell those HM Pokémon for a marked up price since the more Poke I have, the more flexible I can be for spending in the future, and I REALLY don't like be stonewalled in making muns unless the DM specifically is the one doing it or its a plain bad idea (which I don't think it is, in this case).

Short term problems/benefits can still lead to long term consequences.  It's not that Nathan doesn't think Ventus can't handle the pokemon, it's more that he'd rather not risk a large number of people learning that there's another Rock Smash HM out there.

Disagree with the Disbodience Guidelines, on the grounds that they negatively impact mine and Ven's bottomline when selling rare and unruly Pokémon on the Black Market. Ven's also going to take every precaution he can take to prevent ANYONE from tracing HM Rock Smash back to the group, and he's pretty good at doing that and acting too, so you shouldn't worry TOO much about selling off those Pokémon coming to bite you back in the but.

If all this goes through and I'm denied the chance to sell those HM Pokémon, however, I'm going to start deliberately hiding which Pokémon I want to keep on my team when I catch Pokémon in the future , and make no mention anywhere that would contradict the fact until after the fact they learn a HM and are in the process of being sold. That way no rolls can't be call or ultimately be clearly decided, since my character intentions are unknown unless Iron decides to arbitrarily assign them. Call that underhanded if you want, but I don't like a method of making revenue in a what I think is relatively risk free way OCCASIONALLY being completely denied without DM approval, so yeah. It would be like telling me I can't sell Frosthra to a random smuck because its 'Too Dangerous' to do so: its my choice to decide if that is the case, and whether to go ahead and do so regardless.

[Spiritmon]

Just one question: DO we need to give the Rock to the League? I mean, we find that HM first, and we help save the entire region. I think we should keep it.

[Dragonstrike]

Windos, I'm making a big deal about this because this could affect the whole group very, very negatively in the future.  

And I also think this should be a group decision since this is a group reward.  @Spiritmon, @Nylon, have any thoughts you'd like to share?

[Dragonstrike]

Just one question: DO we need to give the Rock to the League? I mean, we find that HM first, and we help save the entire region. I think we should keep it.

We don't, but chances are the League might get snippy depending how we use it and who else knows we have it if they find out we have it.

[Nylon]

Valder doesn't mind. Ventus is his boss, plus, Valder doesn't know the specific rules and as long as he won't obviously be affected negatively by the choice, Valder won't interfere.

[Lord Windos]

Windos, I'm making a big deal about this because this could affect the whole group very, very negatively in the future.  

And I also think this should be a group decision since this is a group reward.  @Spiritmon, @Nylon, have any thoughts you'd like to share?

I remain adamant in my decision for the reasons I've described, and that is all I will say on this anymore to prevent pointless arguments and toxicity.

I agree that this should be discussed as a group, but I disagree with the notion to restrict a group reward IC or OCC, since that devalues it and limits how useful it is to the party as a whole. If other want to follow 'unofficial' rule of conduct with a group rewards, let them, but to those that don't, let them too.