[STAFF INPUT PLEASE] Changing Pokemon 'Protagonist' pages

[Super_Ascended_Sean_Pazdera]

Stick to the ones that actually appear/coded in the game tbh. Theres tons of 'event pokemon' technically but we're not gonna list every single gift pokemon either since thats a meta-aspect.

Like, dont give Manaphy to Florian/Julia or Jirachi to Nate/Rosa if theres legitimately no way to obtain these mons other than trading from a separate game and pretending like your alternate save files are all in the same exact universe as the others.

That should be case-by-case, because the reason the Pokemon Ranger event transfers exist are canonically because the Ranger Union sent the Pokemon to you to keep them safe.

 

[ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn]

Stick to the ones that actually appear/coded in the game tbh. Theres tons of 'event pokemon' technically but we're not gonna list every single gift pokemon either since thats a meta-aspect.

Like, dont give Manaphy to Florian/Julia or Jirachi to Nate/Rosa if theres legitimately no way to obtain these mons other than trading from a separate game and pretending like your alternate save files are all in the same exact universe as the others.

Ok, but why?

 

[Jinx666]

Ok, but why?

Because other than Dawn/Lucas or Rei/Akari, theres literally no reasonable way other than in meta-contextual (trading cross-game and pokegening) of obtaining this Pokemon for other protagonists. Idk how many times i gotta explain this

Even the National Dex doesnt require you to have some of these inobtainable mythicals. Just because theyre coded in the game (every Pokemon was up until Gen 8), theres no way for them to reasonably obtain.

Giving every trainer the entire National Dex just feels like it needed to overbloat profiles instead of sticking to what that player can actually do within story. It also becomes an issue because you can technically complete NatDex before the 2nd Gym, so by the logic presented in these comments, the trainers are all Tier 1 before the Gym. Which is purely wrong

 

[ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn]

Because other than Dawn/Lucas or Rei/Akari, theres literally no reasonable way other than in meta-contextual (trading cross-game and pokegening) of obtaining this Pokemon for other protagonists. Idk how many times i gotta explain this

Even the National Dex doesnt require you to have some of these inobtainable mythicals. Just because theyre coded in the game (every Pokemon was up until Gen 8), theres no way for them to reasonably obtain.

Giving every trainer the entire National Dex just feels like it needed to overbloat profiles instead of sticking to what that player can actually do within story. It also becomes an issue because you can technically complete NatDex before the 2nd Gym, so by the logic presented in these comments, the trainers are all Tier 1 before the Gym. Which is purely wrong

I see no reason to exclude them for the same reasons I've explained.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Solution

• Change the current Protagonists pages into WIP blog posts until someone is willing to incorporate both player characters into one page, and to any accepted standards.
• Adding these rules to one of the Pokemon pages, such as on the Verse page for future reference

I'd personally just... nuke these profiles.

The playables in Pokémon games, unlike most RPGs, lack any canon personality or moveset as it depends entirely on the irl player's choice as they act as complete self inserts. They don't have a canon team, and they don't have a canon set of items.

Stuff like trading is indeed a component of the lore as the developers made it really clear multiple times that the purpose of the nat dex and other players' interaction is to get more Pokémon until getting all the dex complete, and you get a reward in every game for completing the natdex.

The profiles would be genuinely all "Dude has every Pokémon and Item up to [insert gen]", if we really want to play like this, and obviously a profile like this cannot work. RPGs don't have meta-elements like Pokémon to the point they heavily use out-of-universe mechanics as part of the genuine parts of the world, which would make the line between intended canon and game mechanic way too blurry to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Imho, the only protagonists worth a profile are guys like Red who have a canon team and have some actual lore about them. Rest is all just a blank paper which can be filled with everything.

 

[Jinx666]

I see no reason to exclude them for the same reasons I've explained.

Cool ig. I didnt expect anything else given this sites standards but just giving the characters absolutely everything when most of these additions arent available logically is just kinda telling

I'd personally just... nuke these profiles.

I mean i'd love to, but it is unfair since you can make a case for them. Protagonist profiles are just too much effort and unable to be maintained by the current wiki anyway.

When this thread goes through, they'll just get moved to blogs that people can edit to certain standards anyway so hopefully thats daunting enough

 

[StrymULTRA]

I mean i'd love to, but it is unfair since you can make a case for them.

We literally ban sandbox verses on the basis of them not having a canon nor a story, though.

 

[Jinx666]

We literally ban sandbox verses on the basis of them not having a canon nor a story, though.

yeah but unlike those, you can actually merit them having a profile, as much as i don't think this wiki has cracked the formula at it and now seemingly wont be fair in what they actually give these player characters on the basis of their own story, as opposed to compositing every possible thing you can do in a game. It just creates glorified OC profiles

So i'm for either. If Protag profiles are staying, then they need to be adjusted as the OP states, or just get rid of them for the forseeable future.

 

[Lou_change]

The playables in Pokémon games, unlike most RPGs, lack any canon personality or moveset as it depends entirely on the irl player's choice as they act as complete self inserts. They don't have a canon team, and they don't have a canon set of items.

we have profiles for characters like this

The profiles would be genuinely all "Dude has every Pokémon and Item up to [insert gen]", if we really want to play like this, and obviously a profile like this cannot work. RPGs don't have meta-elements like Pokémon to the point they heavily use out-of-universe mechanics as part of the genuine parts of the world, which would make the line between intended canon and game mechanic way too blurry to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Several items have been removed like the type gems, and there are features that represent actual powers like O-Power, Rotom Power, and Pass Power

 

[Jinx666]

we have profiles for characters like this

Looks pretty outdated, lacking references and a product of its time to me. We shouldnt be holding standards just cause it exists.

This is at least a single character that actually fights with the tools they can access however, as opposed to a Pokemon protag summoning a completely OC-chosen team of Pokemon (that people also wanna include things they shouldnt logically have access to).

 

[StekFence]

Well no, it’s not that there’s no logical reason for them to have arceus for example. Obviously some Dppt playthroughs have those, and can trade them to whomever. That’s the logical reason. You talk about tools they can actually access, but semantically at least, literally any playthough could actually access one via using a mechanic that exists inverse.

Your statement sounds like trading crossgame is somehow this uncanonical thing, when it’s core to the franchise as a whole. Why would different games need to be in the same universe as you previously mentioned anyway? Black and white can trade with one another just fine and obviously are similar but different universes. Or am I missing something? The crux of what I’m saying is “saying you got a Pokémon by trading in Pokémon makes sense”

 

[Jinx666]

Well no, it’s not that there’s no logical reason for them to have arceus for example. Obviously some Dppt playthroughs have those, and can trade them to whomever. That’s the logical reason. You talk about tools they can actually access, but semantically at least, literally any playthough could actually access one via using a mechanic that exists inverse.

Well no cause Arceus has never been officially released or attainable. Literally.

Your statement sounds like trading crossgame is somehow this uncanonical thing, when it’s core to the franchise as a whole. Why would different games need to be in the same universe as you previously mentioned anyway? Black and white can trade with one another just fine and obviously are similar but different universes. Or am I missing something? The crux of what I’m saying is “saying you got a Pokémon by trading in Pokémon makes sense”

Trading is canon, trading crossgame to yourself and amongst literal carbon copies of you within the same universe IS definitely more farfetch'd. And we all know the reason why it is.
I dont think theres any canonical 'trading partners' to this whatsoever.

Its also completely different to obtain trade evos from actual accessible Pokemon in the game, compared to saying the player can just get ANY legendary or mythical that isnt legally made obtainable

 

[Lou_change]

Well no cause Arceus has never been officially released or attainable. Literally.

Huh?

Looks pretty outdated, lacking references and a product of its time to me. We shouldnt be holding standards just cause it exists.

Aren't the rules regarding references for stuff that consists of one piece of media like one game because they are almost all from just one game.

 

[Random-Helper323]

It seems to me that every RPG player character has all possible unique equipment listed, except specific player-made items. So it seems to me that the safest way to index these trade Pokemon would be to list them with a separate key as optional Pokemon. Not indexing them seems like an incomplete profile, and including them as standard is obviously a bad idea. As it is we scale the characters based on who they fight and beat. Obviously every player character having a Tier 1 key based on Arceus is weird, but if it's meant to be a player character representation that probably is best. If we're talking about the characters' canon or likely canon selves that becomes different.

 

[Jinx666]

Bump

So yeah, we just need staff votes then to apply the standards? Whether or not ppl include stuff like NatDex is a separate thing

 

[Jinx666]

Huh?

Yeah you dont gotta link to Bulbapedia.

Arceus never got its event officially released. It wasnt until Legends Arceus where you could actually obtain it.

Aren't the rules regarding references for stuff that consists of one piece of media like one game because they are almost all from just one game.

I wouldnt know whatever you linked to but you usually link what chapters/quests/points in the story/location of flavour text for games regardless if its just one. At the very least.

 

[Lou_change]

There are dozens of events they just ditched the flute

 

[Jinx666]

Not for Arceus.

Online gifts and stuff like that wouldnt count for the actual canon either lbr. Way too meta

 

[Jinx666]

bump

 

[Jinx666]

bump

just needs staff to approve now?

 

[Jinx666]

bump

 

[Random-Helper323]

What still needs to be done here?

 

[Jinx666]

Just staff input. Everyone except youknowwho agrees to the OP standards (Other than how we 'composite' them ig but the thread was never about that), but as usual the changes are at a standstill until staff members can chip in

 

[Random-Helper323]

@Imaginym what do you think?

 

[Super_Ascended_Sean_Pazdera]

What are the current potential changes?

 

[Imaginym]

What are the current points of discussion?

@Imaginym what do you think?

Not sure yet, just noticed this notification & also there's 7 pages.

 

[Jinx666]

What are the current points of discussion?

Well other than what i propose in OP

1) To make protagonist pages fit both the male and female counterparts, and treat them as actual composite player characters as opposed to 'canon' NPC characters like they currently are. This involves moving all protagonist pages we have to blogs that can then be revised while enforcing this new standard, since no one has dedicated themself to fixing them.

2) Change their name to something like 'Pokemon Trainer (Insertgamehere)' or 'Player (Insertgamehere)' to fit this. As much as the protags have canon names, they're placeholders compared to the actual savefiles letting you decide what to name them (and every other aspect of them)

3) The more controversial one, but to not mention any specific pokemon and instead, similar to Ben 10, just list off the potential mons they can choose from.

 

[Super_Ascended_Sean_Pazdera]

Well other than what i propose in OP

1) To make protagonist pages fit both the male and female counterparts, and treat them as actual composite player characters as opposed to 'canon' NPC characters like they currently are. This involves moving all protagonist pages we have to blogs that can then be revised while enforcing this new standard, since no one has dedicated themself to fixing them.

You're really trying to go over my head about this, huh? Composites are still very banned, I dunno why you're going against portraying how they're canonically like. On top of that, you deleting my profiles again and taking their credit from me is not going to happen.

2) Change their name to something like 'Pokemon Trainer (Insertgamehere)' or 'Player (Insertgamehere)' to fit this. As much as the protags have canon names, they're placeholders compared to the actual savefiles letting you decide what to name them (and every other aspect of them)

This would be confusing for 3 reasons:

1. Since the title "Pokemon Trainer" is already given to the character of the same name from Super Smash Bros

2. The other Pokemon Trainer in Super Smash Bros

3. All people who train Pokemon in the verse are called Pokemon Trainers.

3) The more controversial one, but to not mention any specific pokemon and instead, similar to Ben 10, just list off the potential mons they can choose from.

They can "choose from" just about any Pokemon in the verse, so that would be even worse than before if there was a problem back then.

 

[Lou_change]

You're really trying to go over my head about this, huh? Composites are still very banned, I dunno why you're going against portraying how they're canonically like. On top of that, you deleting my profiles again and taking their credit from me is not going to happen.

I think by composite they mean saying both genders are the same character for our purposes.

This would be confusing for 3 reasons:

1. Since the title "Pokemon Trainer" is already given to the character of the same name from Super Smash Bros

2. The other Pokemon Trainer in Super Smash Bros

3. All people who train Pokemon in the verse are called Pokemon Trainers.

player still works.

They can "choose from" just about any Pokemon in the verse, so that would be even worse than before if there was a problem back then.

wouldn't it still be more accurate

 

[Random-Helper323]

I believe player made RPG protagonists like Dragonborn would be a good source to look to here for precedent.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

I believe player made RPG protagonists like Dragonborn would be a good source to look to here for precedent.

Agree.

 

[Random-Helper323]

It has been pointed out that the DB can carry all the unique weapons and gear but trainers can't carry more than six Pokemon. I'd like to point out that the DB has a carry weight limit as well. Assuming all items carried would overtax most player's carry weight, at least without exploits.

 

[Jinx666]

Well in terms of using them in vs threads then we just gotta note the rules. They can only carry 6 Pokemon at a time, those have to be discussed in thread, as well as nay other variables like held items. If of course, people just need an excuse to put their OCs in the page

If we just list the Pokedex (and i mean, id rather not the NatDex you can only access via meta-trades alongside all the legendary lore that doesnt fit in) from their respective region, not only do we get the pages doing something different to one another than just being composite build-offs, but it isnt impossibly long either.

Idk, theyre more trouble than they're worth but id rather just get these pages not setting a confusing precedent. This can all be discussed after the thread passes for the standard changes im proposing


As much as we have some existing templates tbh, given the nature of a Pokemon Trainer utilising completely separate creatures (with inbuilt limits), its still different to compositing a character like the Dragonborn who still has all their spells and items and stuff naturally on command. They also dont work on separate AP/DC tiers to them like Trainers and their summons do.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

Minor Bump

 

[Jinx666]

Bump

 

[Imaginym]

Hello

Okay so, I want to get this over with, and i want to do this with as minimal bickering as possible, but I dont think the way we are accepting Pokemon Protagonist profiles are right. (This is not targeted either, this is a valid concern. Need to point that out)

Thus far we have five as far as i know: Elio, Calem, Gloria, Ethan and Rei

To get to the point, i think these profiles should be changed in the following ways

A) Protagonist pages including both the Male and Female Protagonists.

Right now, only one of these two characters are being made into a profile, and pretended like they hold a precedence over the other. This is due to Pokemon Masters EX, but this has not been officially decided

• Masters EX is 'secondary canon' at most, and does not hold power over anything mainline. This would include the option of male or female player character
• Masters EX's versions of the characters are actually...the characters, as opposed to player inserts like in the mainline. They make up relations, let the male and female protag coexist in made-up cases, and even split the story lines between the male and female in some cases.
• There is no confirmation that Masters EX is the canon way that mainline events go.

As such, if protagonist profiles should be made, they should be strictly limited to storylocked information only covered in the mainline with minor support if necessary.

If profiles want to be made of these separate characters, then a Masters EX variant should be made since that game separates these two characters, but otherwise theres nothing discerning them for mainline. You use whatever the characters have stated in Masters EX themself to add to their profile, but you dont hold them to everything that can be done in mainline games

If other Staff & other Knowledgeable Members are okay with this, I'm tentatively fine with it.

B) Calling them 'Player (Pokemon insertgamenamehere)' (or something of the like)

Once again this is related to trying to choose one protagonist over the other, when theres no canon. While the characters have official names, we as the player choose our own name and go on our own separate adventure, with many many other variables that we cant possibly call canon unless they are storylocked. As such, we are similar to other customisable JRPG characters and should make them.

A lot of sections such as Intelligence, Stamina and even the Physical Stats ones are also brought into question. Theres so much gameplay mechanics involved in beating characters (Like bringing a FEAR team to a champion battle and winning, you wouldnt scale those realistically)

This excludes Red obviously, since he has also appeared as an NPC that plays a role in the story.

I'm personally in favor of going with something like "Player (gamename)" or "Pokemon Trainer (gamename)". The "canon"/"official" names can be redirects to the page to implement them. Yes, we could call them like, Brendan & May, but if the player characters are so indistinct, it's probably not desirable to dedicate a somewhat redundant page to each half of the pair.

The notions about what outcomes are canon is something I have my own thoughts about, but I think that that's not pertinent to the topic of naming the protagonist that the section I'm quoting is discussing.

C) Making Composited information (such as collectable items and Pokemon teams) 'Optional' and sticking to confirmed storybeats for Standard.

This is probably the most debatable aspect, but if we are to make these player inserts, i dont think we should be including long lists of absolutely EVERY item obtainable, or giving them confirmed full complete access to the entire pokedex. Or just generally giving them every optional aspects of the game (especially when Pokemon doesnt have a '100% completion' like other games.)

The notion of the obtainment of the Diplomas, Pokedex evaluation dialogue, & likely other things, seems to disagree with the sentiment here. Not every player character does, but given they can, it is plausible they could, so I would say we should acknowledge that they can obtain all Pokemon, even if it's just a note or bit in the optional equipment saying they can have [Other obtainable Pokemon here].

As such, unless the Pokemon are GIVEN/Forced to be caught to them as part of the story (or other similar scenarios such as catching the box legendary), then their moveset of Pokemon or the items they possess shouldnt be assumed too. The whole game we are essentially playing by the players' choices and our character is a non-speaking insert role that just is sorta...made to win at everything. There are too many variables in Pokemon that trying to make out that the player works a specific way outside of mandatory story beats just ends up looking bloated or OC.

So you propose that what "sets" (for lack of a better term that comes to mind at this time.) the Pokemon that a player character profile has are to be indeterminate so as to be determined when they come up in Versus Threads?

A lot of the info would go under 'Optional Equipment' regardless. If people REALLY wanna include this, it should be in a collapsible textbox so that it isn't making the page look longer than it needs to. Quality > Quantity and User-friendly interface is key.

This is also an interesting notion.

Solution

• Change the current Protagonists pages into WIP blog posts until someone is willing to incorporate both player characters into one page, and to any accepted standards.

This tentatively seems like a solution that, although ideally temporary, can be used until standard-acceptable profiles are made.
What do other Staff & Knowledgeable Members think?

• Adding these rules to one of the Pokemon pages, such as on the Verse page for future reference

This proposal is personally jarring to me. Adding a verse page rule, so as to prohibit things seems a bit extreme, & maybe even redundant, when there'll already be blog profiles being made to meet standards should the above proposal be accepted.
Would not a note on the verse page to inform visitors about the scenario suffice?

This OP can be updated for any developments or to elaborate on any questions one might ask.

It may be helpful to list things such as who has stances of Agree, Disagree or Neutral or whatnot, & if you're willing, maybe also link to where in the thread their stances were established; At 7 pages, this thread can now be a bit daunting to go through.


Sorry this took so long for me to respond to.
Haven't really checked the full thread, but I did check the OP & 1 of the (at the time) newer posts that quoted me asking about things recently.
I hope this helps, or is at least appreciable & not bothersome!

 

[Jinx666]

If

In quick response:

Having access to all the Pokemon in a Pokedex is still techincally optional since its a canon fact that trainers can only carry 6 Pokemon at a time. And given they're player stand-in characters, then those options are mandatory if the characters would be used in Vs threads .
It also comes into question about what Pokemon are available to them in terms of the NatDex, let alone the legendaries/mythicals that arent legally obtainable to most of these protags (Like Arceus(

The verse page thing doesnt have to be a rule, it can be a note. Admittedly i worded it as a rule so that it would be have to be followed by Sean, but since Sean is gone as the only person who was making protag profiles to their own design, I have no issues rebuking it. Its just to enforce the standard .

I mean it gets a bit foggy when the thread derailed so much into the players' kits. The only person who disagreed with what OP properly put forward was youknowwho but hes gone now.

There was this one-note response by Klol where they only addressed one part and seemed to misunderstand what I was saying. They weren't responding to the OP regardless, just the notion about how we treat 'game mechanics' but thats not whats being carried out in this thread.

 

[Jinx666]

Bump

 

[Imaginym]

In quick response:

Having access to all the Pokemon in a Pokedex is still techincally optional since its a canon fact that trainers can only carry 6 Pokemon at a time. And given they're player stand-in characters, then those options are mandatory if the characters would be used in Vs threads .
It also comes into question about what Pokemon are available to them in terms of the NatDex, let alone the legendaries/mythicals that arent legally obtainable to most of these protags (Like Arceus(

I'd like to ask for clarification. What do you mean by "technically optional"? Interpretations could include:
You're saying it's optional to claim, on their profile, that the character has obtained all the Pokemon. (Since this is a revision to the profiles.)

I guess under the premise that the protagonist/player character doesn't necessarily obtain the Diploma?

I'd like to know what others think about this.

The verse page thing doesnt have to be a rule, it can be a note. Admittedly i worded it as a rule so that it would be have to be followed by Sean, but since Sean is gone as the only person who was making protag profiles to their own design, I have no issues rebuking it. Its just to enforce the standard .

Making a verse-wide rule or note because of one person's behaviour may be a bit extreme. I would assume if it's problematic, there's ways to prevent a given individual from editing, or for a Staff Member to tell them not to do so.
Presuming by "rebuking" it, I assume you mean retracting the proposal of the note/rule, I'm fine with it not being included, though you may wish to edit the OP to indicate the proposal's retraction if you choose to do so.

I mean it gets a bit foggy when the thread derailed so much into the players' kits. The only person who disagreed with what OP properly put forward was youknowwho but hes gone now.

That doesn't really solve the question. If you aren't willing to find & list who established which stances on what in this thread, I could try to check & make a list when I have time, or ask someone else.

There was this one-note response by Klol where they only addressed one part and seemed to misunderstand what I was saying. They weren't responding to the OP regardless, just the notion about how we treat 'game mechanics' but thats not whats being carried out in this thread.

What part do you feel KLol misunderstood, & in what way?

 

[Jinx666]

I'd like to ask for clarification. What do you mean by "technically optional"? Interpretations could include:
You're saying it's optional to claim, on their profile, that the character has obtained all the Pokemon. (Since this is a revision to the profiles.)

I guess under the premise that the protagonist/player character doesn't necessarily obtain the Diploma?

I'd like to know what others think about this.

Completing the Pokedex, (especially the NatDex), is an optional thing for every save file to do. Unless its PLA, you don't get anything significant or game-progressing by completing everything. You can but its not set or enforced to progress unlike playing the story.
Ergo thats why the selection of Pokemon if they were to be used in Versus Threads should be from an optional pool.
(Id personally prefer if it focused on the actual region-dex so we arent just giving that player access to mons they can only get from outside world-trades with metagaming aspects.)

Making a verse-wide rule or note because of one person's behaviour may be a bit extreme. I would assume if it's problematic, there's ways to prevent a given individual from editing, or for a Staff Member to tell them not to do so.
Presuming by "rebuking" it, I assume you mean retracting the proposal of the note/rule, I'm fine with it not being included, though you may wish to edit the OP to indicate the proposal's retraction if you choose to do so.

Well i mean they're gone now so its whatever but their way of making profiles (and it just being accepted to run by their headcanons of 'whose the canon protag') is why i wanted to make this thread in the first place since i frequently got 'Make a CRT' as a response whenever i asked about things like this.

It doesnt need to be an enforced rule but it should definitely be a standard when we deal with Pokemon Protagonists. Unlike NPCs (excluding Red ig), these are cookie cutter player insert characters.

That doesn't really solve the question. If you aren't willing to find & list who established which stances on what in this thread, I could try to check & make a list when I have time, or ask someone else.

I mean you can, most of this thread is just the OP getting derailed and focusing on another aspect (since the main proposals of this thread like changing the names and making the profiles forced to focus on both protags interchangeably is uncontroversial to everyone except the guy that isnt allowed on the wiki anymore)

What part do you feel KLol misunderstood, & in what way?

They misunderstood/didnt read the OP and assumed from the current derailed convo that this was about compositing game mechanics or w/e for Pokemon when it wasnt. I linked the post they sent and all they talked about was regarding the discussion going onn at the time about how we treat the Pokedex.