Could you specify the question a bit more?
I kinda feel like Pokemon spans so many adaptations with different interpretations that part of the reason I typically keep away from Pokemon RPs is that if somebody's running a different interpretation to me, it just doesn't quite gel for me.
Firstly, I guess the thing is whether in this they're 'narratively realistic' creatures, or based on the games. For example, would each Pokemon have an ability, a held item, and a selection of four moves that they can learn, or would each Pokemon perhaps have a brief individual description of its skills based on the commonly-understood characteristics of its species?
The second thing is, what degree of realism is being applied to Pokemon? One of my real bugbears is the type match-up system: Mach Punch is, for example, a fighting type move, but all it is is a punch. Therefore, this punch is more effective against Rock Types than the more powerful Mega Punch, and less effective against Poison types, despite, in essence, being the same technique. And then the same applies to almost all physical moves: Rock Throw is simply throwing a hard object at the target for physical impact - not too dissimilar to a punch, really. Outside the context of type matchup in the games, a lot of the elements of Pokemon battles become really hard to rationalise.
