VisionStorm
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 2,607
What's a "Martial Controller"?
A spiky controller with a chained cord that doubles as a morningstar.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What's a "Martial Controller"?
It depends on what you consider the Paladin class to be-- if they're merely a templar for the Gods of Good, then it would make sense that the Gods of Evil would have their own templars, along with every other god. But if Paladins are something special, empowered not just by "the gods" but by their conviction in moral principles that are bigger than themselves... how in the fuck is Evil, especially cartoonish D&D Evil, supposed to field an "equal and opposite" counterpart?I don't necessarily have an issue with antipaladins or the idea of an "unholy warrior", though.
It depends on what you consider the Paladin class to be-- if they're merely a templar for the Gods of Good, then it would make sense that the Gods of Evil would have their own templars, along with every other god. But if Paladins are something special, empowered not just by "the gods" but by their conviction in moral principles that are bigger than themselves... how in the fuck is Evil, especially cartoonish D&D Evil, supposed to field an "equal and opposite" counterpart?
To riff off this, if you're doing an introductory scenario your pre gens shouldn't be above starting power level (I'm looking at you WFRP 4e). It does not fill me with confidence if you're unable to make starting PCs work for a single scenario.When you write a scenario to show how it all fits together complete with appropriate pre-gens, would it be possible for you to stick to the system? You know, the system you wrote back there, in the book. That's the one.
I thought it was a genuinely interesting design space that they never explored, and there was clearly some opportunity there because Pathfinder has managed at least two (Swashbuckler and Alchemist), "spiked chain" was one of the fairly strong martial builds in 3.x and revolved around controlling a space, and zoner characters have always been a fairly popular archetype in fighting games.It's an expression of D&D 4e class design, much-maligned even though it's just codifying concepts that were unspoken in prior editions.
Classes are defined by two descriptors, their Role and their Power Source:
The Roles are Defender, Striker, Leader, and Controller:
The Power Sources (in the first PHB) are Martial, Arcane, and Divine.
- Defenders stand between their allies and the enemy and try to draw fire, because they're better equipped to take hits. Fighters and Paladins are Defenders.
- Strikers are mobile combatants that do a lot of damage, but can't last in a stand-up fight. Rangers, Rogues, Monks, and Warlocks are Strikers.
- Leaders are support characters and healers. Clerics, Bards, and Warlords are Leaders.
- Controllers are support characters who weaken enemies and set them up for allies. Wizards and Druids are Controllers.
So, by PHB3, every possible combination of Role and Power Source had been published by WotC. Except Martial Controller.
- Martial characters are characters who rely on skill, technique, and their equipment. Fighters, Rogues, and Warlords are Martial.
- Arcane characters... well, they cast arcane magic. Wizards, Warlocks, and Bards are Arcane.
- Divine characters draw upon the power of godlike beings. Clerics and Paladins are Divine.
Martials had Defender Fighter, Strikers Ranger and Rogue, and Leader Warlord.
Arcane had Defender Swordmage, Striker Warlock, Leaders Bard and Artificer, and Controller Wizard.
Divine had Defender Paladin, Striker Avenger, Leader Cleric, and Controller Invoker.
Even Psionic, introduced in PHB3 had Battlemind, Monk, Ardent, and Psion.
Shadow only had two different Strikers.
But... lots and lots of people insisted beyond all reason that we needed a martial class that used skill and training to debuff and manipulate enemies.
To riff off this, if you're doing an introductory scenario your pre gens shouldn't be above starting power level (I'm looking at you WFRP 4e). It does not fill me with confidence if you're unable to make starting PCs work for a single scenario.
THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!THIS!if you are making an RPG about an established IP, don't present the writeups for the main characters as impossible to create using your own character creations rules
Yes, while I understand the school of thought in Kriegspiel that having a knowledgeable, experienced referee to adjudicate was more useful than a mechanical system, when you are making a game to sell to other people, you can give them mechanics, but you can't give them life experience.Depending on GM fiat to resolve everything. Sure, the GM will have to resolve things sometimes. Ideally you've got a core mechanic that's robust and flexible enough to handle most anything with a skill roll. But look, if your game can't function without GM fiat handling everything all the time your game is incomplete and badly designed. It's common enough that you're only going to the first circle of hell because it's biggest and all. OD&D and Tunnels and Trolls get a pass on this because of the ignorance of early days but you'd think by eighth edition T&T's combat system would actually function in play. It's not avante garde or liberating it's laziness and incompetence. Into the pit with ye!
As others have said, this one depends on the implementation. If it just means that I have 8 different HP pools and everyone always does called shots to the head because it has the smallest pool, then it is a bad system. If is there to allow genuinely interesting combat options, as is Mythras, then it is worth having.This is purely personal but I get annoyed at hit locations as it adds an extra layer of complexity to combat.
This. I played in a Hackmaster game where the GM which has a cartoonish level of character generation options, and the GM had them all turned on. It took over an hour to make characters. The game was also a meatgrinder megadungeon.Character generation length should be inversely proportional to lethality.
I like repetition if it avoids page-flipping. You often get situations where a regularly used action like healing is split between the healing skill description and the combat section, with both sections being needed for the full rules.Repetition if it's things like spells or feats being complete descriptions even if some rules are repeated are OK for me, but I could imagine repetition in other places being annoying.
This is the complete opposite of my view. If someone is playing a character with a drinking problem, I'd much rather it be a plot hook encouraging the player to just rp their condition in return for a reward than having some kind of addiction mechanic I have to enforce. It's the difference between throwing a character a Benny in Savage Worlds when they get drunk at an inopportune time vs. having to schedule Willpower checks every four hours that a character hasn't had a drink.But IMO disadvantages that grant extra points during character creation should 1) have concrete mechanical penalties that don't rely on the player bothering to RP their character (usually in an annoying, half-asses, lip servicy sorta way), and 2) they should be actual disadvantages, rather than plot hooks guaranteed to grant you and the rest of the party extra XP once they come up during play.
This is something I have observed with BedrockBrendan . As soon has the mechanical equivalent of two rocks to rub together, he starts playtesting. When Righteous Blood, Ruthless Blades was still embryonic, he'd get people together to make characters and have them fight (either each other or monsters). They weren't adventures, just scenes.I don't know if it's a sin exactly, but I wish designers would sit down and write at least starters/concepts/outlines for a couple dozen or so adventures early in their game design process, as a normal part of designing their games.
It probably doesn't affect professional designers a lot, but I'd like to see a few more happy amateurs actually develop a clear idea of what players and GMs are going to use their system to do exactly.
I had a buddy who went on a tear developing a home-brew system for something a bit like American Gods but set in the Old West. In the process he probably had 30 handwritten pages for a skill system, including a whole bunch of work-related skills (blacksmithing, carpentry, so on). I asked how he imagined those would come up in play and how often. He was just a bit dumbfounded by even hearing the question. Of course a skills system of that type was needed! Of course it had to include a bunch of mundane skills!
After a couple of hours of him valiantly defending his design choices and hard work, I still had no idea what sort of adventures he imagined characters would go on in the setting or what those mundane skills and their related system added to the fun of any of it.
Same here.I like the more modern version when "disadvantages" are "this will grant you a bonus EXP if it both comes up in play and makes your life more difficult".
I generally agree. Hillfolk is the only game I like that does this, but it has a much more unique structure. It's a player-driven game where most of the action is between PCs. The GM isn't the guy who runs the world. He's the guy who is stirring shit to keep things interesting.Meta-currency... for GMs.
Look, a GM's role is very complex. Fun! But very detailed and demanding.
To create a game system in which the GM has to "earn" permission to do their job... I think that's just plain awful now.
I get that people seem to love this in games like Fate Core. And I don't mind it if certain special dice rolls by PLAYERS generate their own narrative triggers (e.g. critical success or failure, complications on success, boons on failure etc...) but having a game shackle the GM's freedom to be creative...
Thanks, I hate it. And I hate that our current community makes modern game designers and players feel that the necessity to implement this trust system.
I think the biggest "Game Design Sin" is a lack of questioning why you are doing what you're doing during the design process, or maybe "making a game, but not designing it." Basically, somebody has a genre or setting idea they love, they take an existing game or game engine, and paint in the numbers. Like a PbtA game that is just AW with new playbooks, or a D&D-like that swaps out a set of classes to become a Noir game or something. Like, you could be in 2004 making a Noir game with giant chapters detailing partial actions and 5 ft. steps & Feat trees for Femme Fatales & Saving Throws. Is that the best way to evoke the vibes you are going for with your setting? Or is it cargo cult design, where you cobble together something in the shape of 5e and hope the money starts flying in?
There is definitely a balance between these two views.I think that's a fair criticism, but I think it goes the other way as well. That is, some game-makers are much better at creating an interesting setting than they are at coming up with new mechanics, but feel they have to create a new system for their game when just a systemless setting book--or a book that fits the setting into one or more existing systems--would actually be more useful.
I'll admit to being biased, since at this point in my gaming arc I'm suffering somewhat from system fatigue and don't have a lot of interest in learning new ones simply to try something different. YMMV, etc.
I generally agree, but there are exceptions. Sometimes you want a rarely-used system to be elaborate because it is occasional, and you want it to feel special. Mass combats are an example of this.Along the lines of chargen and lethality, the depth of a sub system should be no more than proportional to how much you expect to see it used. No need for 7 charts on detailed wall crawling if the game is about dueling mages.
The worst is when this is done deliberately. One of the things in D&D 3E that I hated was all the Feats that boiled down to "Add +2 to SKILL #1 and add +2 to SKILL #2." It seemed like every supplement and issue of Dragon would include another use of that template. It's not a CCG. I don't need a separate card for every expression of this Feat. They could have easily just made a generic version in the core book and been done with it.Malign Completion Syndrome has to be one of my biggest pet peeves in game design-- it can badly deform a game's internal logic and stuff it full of design elements that don't make sense and don't serve a purpose. In terms of undermining intentionality... compulsive design might be even worse than lazy design.
I've never run that scenario or used those pre-gens, so I have never noticed this. That is an odd decision, especially for WFRP. The game has Fate Points, so it is close to impossible to die in your first session. It's got the lowest whiff-factor than 1E and 2E as well.To riff off this, if you're doing an introductory scenario your pre gens shouldn't be above starting power level (I'm looking at you WFRP 4e). It does not fill me with confidence if you're unable to make starting PCs work for a single scenario.
It depends on what you consider the Paladin class to be-- if they're merely a templar for the Gods of Good, then it would make sense that the Gods of Evil would have their own templars, along with every other god. But if Paladins are something special, empowered not just by "the gods" but by their conviction in moral principles that are bigger than themselves... how in the fuck is Evil, especially cartoonish D&D Evil, supposed to field an "equal and opposite" counterpart?
It cheapens the very concept. And, ironically... the very same people who keep telling me that about Chaotic Good Paladins are the mouthbreathing chucklefucks that keep demanding more and more Lawful "Good", Lawful Neutral, Lawful "Neutral", and outright Lawful fucking Evil Paladin subclasses.
There's nothing artificial about a split between Arcane and Divine, it's a fundamental element of the setting cosmology.Personally I hate this stuff even in games that play like D&D. Spell slots are silly and the arcane/divine split as an artificial D&D distinction.
I don't necessarily have an issue with antipaladins or the idea of an "unholy warrior", though.
I showed my D&D fanatic GM how Sorcery and Theistic magic work in Mythras (especially regarding recovering power). He loved how that system could reinforce the setting’s ideas on sources of arcane and divine power.There's nothing artificial about a split between Arcane and Divine, it's a fundamental element of the setting cosmology.
This is the complete opposite of my view. If someone is playing a character with a drinking problem, I'd much rather it be a plot hook encouraging the player to just rp their condition in return for a reward than having some kind of addiction mechanic I have to enforce. It's the difference between throwing a character a Benny in Savage Worlds when they get drunk at an inopportune time vs. having to schedule Willpower checks every four hours that a character hasn't had a drink.
There's nothing artificial about a split between Arcane and Divine, it's a fundamental element of the setting cosmology.
That's the problem with most people's view on alignment.It depends on what you consider the Paladin class to be-- if they're merely a templar for the Gods of Good, then it would make sense that the Gods of Evil would have their own templars, along with every other god. But if Paladins are something special, empowered not just by "the gods" but by their conviction in moral principles that are bigger than themselves... how in the fuck is Evil, especially cartoonish D&D Evil, supposed to field an "equal and opposite" counterpart?
It cheapens the very concept. And, ironically... the very same people who keep telling me that about Chaotic Good Paladins are the mouthbreathing chucklefucks that keep demanding more and more Lawful "Good", Lawful Neutral, Lawful "Neutral", and outright Lawful fucking Evil Paladin subclasses.
And if God is evil and the universe a reflection of that? I guess the counter point I'm making is Chaos champions get powers in Warhammer.It depends on what you consider the Paladin class to be-- if they're merely a templar for the Gods of Good, then it would make sense that the Gods of Evil would have their own templars, along with every other god. But if Paladins are something special, empowered not just by "the gods" but by their conviction in moral principles that are bigger than themselves... how in the fuck is Evil, especially cartoonish D&D Evil, supposed to field an "equal and opposite" counterpart?
It cheapens the very concept. And, ironically... the very same people who keep telling me that about Chaotic Good Paladins are the mouthbreathing chucklefucks that keep demanding more and more Lawful "Good", Lawful Neutral, Lawful "Neutral", and outright Lawful fucking Evil Paladin subclasses.
Well, what you're saying is true about WotC D&D. They have no concept of setting, setting consistency, or even the idea that a cosmology exists, as evidenced by their various editions.D&D isn't even a setting, but supposedly a generic fantasy adventure game that can (theoretically) be used to play in most high/epic fantasy worlds. That D&D settings incorporate the arcane/divine split into their cosmology is they just building the world around the game's mechanics rather than the other way around. There's no fundamental reason magic and the divine have to be separate, and it in fact goes against real life occult mystical traditions, which do in fact almost invariably acknowledge the divine and involve invoking it as part of ritual magic.
Sure. If Paladins are just templars for their gods, just punchier Clerics, then every god should have their Paladins. Including NG/CG gods and morally Neutral gods, trickster gods and The Old Gods, all of them. Instead, the party line is that Paladins are special champions who have to be perfectly Lawful Good, can only serve perfectly Lawful Good deities, or else they're stripped of all of their powers permanently.And if God is evil and the universe a reflection of that? I guess the counter point I'm making is Chaos champions get powers in Warhammer.
Well, what you're saying is true about WotC D&D. They have no concept of setting, setting consistency, or even the idea that a cosmology exists, as evidenced by their various editions.
What got handed off to them though, was AD&D, which had a definite cosmology.
This hypocritical, schizophrenic bullshit is why D&D alignment arguments have been causing gamers psychic damage for forty-five years.
Not playing your own game.
To be fair, there's a huge difference between running your own games, running games with play testers and letting it run free to the average gamer and them running it. The first two are relatively controlled.That reminds me of the time I told a certain indie game designer I was going to run his game at a con. He said, "Cool; let me know how it actually runs!"
That was a pretty WTF moment for me, and eye-opening too.
Character generation length should be inversely proportional to lethality.
The problem I ended up feeling with disads was the implication that most PCs approached being psychotic. I think that was OK for Champions where a certain style of superhero comic was being followed but it didn’t work for me for fantasy games.I dunno I feel like disadvantages in something like HERO worked pretty well. If I as GM wanted an impromptu encounter I could roll on all their hunters and see who shows up. The players signed up for that kind of attack, the GMs job is made a little easier. Same with vulnerabilities and suseptibilities. Psychological ones were fun too. Violate one? Oh look one of your powers isn't working right! Wonder why that is?
Using jargon and acronymns unique to your game in the text before you've explained them is a big one for me
Or re-naming things which have fairly standard names in the hobby just to be different, when in fact they function the same way as they do in most systems.
This is purely personal but I get annoyed at hit locations as it adds an extra layer of complexity to combat.
Also in GURPS (if I remember correctly) a weapon like a sword does a couple of different types of damage, like one for cutting and thrusting. Again, it's just adding extra detail that bogs the game down a wee bit.
So needless complexity would be one of my bugbears.
Oh here's another one... Rulebooks that repeat themselves over and over.
Meta-currency... for GMs.
Look, a GM's role is very complex. Fun! But very detailed and demanding.
To create a game system in which the GM has to "earn" permission to do their job... I think that's just plain awful now.
I get that people seem to love this in games like Fate Core. And I don't mind it if certain special dice rolls by PLAYERS generate their own narrative triggers (e.g. critical success or failure, complications on success, boons on failure etc...) but having a game shackle the GM's freedom to be creative...
Thanks, I hate it. And I hate that our current community makes modern game designers and players feel that the necessity to implement this trust system.
Oh yeah, and to piggyback on this theme:
If you are making an RPG about an established IP, don't present the writeups for the main characters as impossible to create using your own character creation rules
Man, you have no idea how much that drives me absolutely batshit. Same with D&D and every. single. NPC. having stat arrays more than double the standard point buy for player characters.
Oh....and please stop telling me you have 150 classes and 2000 skills and 1500 spells and 30 martial techniques. Seriously. I'm way too old for that shit. Don't tell me and for your own sake, stop making games like that.
Psychotic? I mean most of mine had codes vs killing and defender of the helpless etc. Basically they tended to explain why they didn't run and hide when the times got tough.The problem I ended up feeling with disads was the implication that most PCs approached being psychotic. I think that was OK for Champions where a certain style of superhero comic was being followed but it didn’t work for me for fantasy games.
The Great Wheel is a concept that was refined, but is self-evident as a different cosmology and not a way to define realistic human behavior by the idea of the Alignment Languages, the Planes, and Planar Beings, which were already present in a fairly coherent form in the first release of AD&D1. Gary was expanding and defining these ideas in the early eighties in Dragon Magazine long before the Manual of the Planes came out in '87, let alone Planescape in '94.D&D didn't even have any defined settings till years after the game was published, and inconsistencies, as well as arbitrary changes to settings in D&D predate WotC. TSR made a lot of random changes and additions to various settings before WotC bought them, ruining Dark Sun with the Expanded and Revised boxed, which added a bunch of unimaginative stuff years after the original was published, messing with Forgotten Realms during the 2e era to shoehorn the Time of Troubles crap, and making a ton of revisions of Dragonlance, which kept changing over the years with multiple releases that kept adding to the world and even changing the original map to increase its size IIRC.
The Great Wheel cosmology was something that didn't even exist originally or emerge whole cloth, but was refined over the years, with additional changes and additions made with the release of Planescape.
Well, if we're talking the parody game HM4, they did give everyone a 20HP "Kicker" at 1st level.Baulderstone Hackmaster took one of AD&D's strengths, shortish chargen, and turned it around completely while keeping the same lethal play style. I'd say that was fine if they also had a random chargen tool to expedite that but they don't as far as I know. To me that is a design fail.
Since many people have fun with HW it seems clear a design fail doesn't mean a fun fail or game fail.
That's not bad but I'm not sure that's enough to justify the charge time.Well, if we're talking the parody game HM4, they did give everyone a 20HP "Kicker" at 1st level.
Oh....and please stop telling me you have 150 classes and 2000 skills and 1500 spells and 30 martial techniques. Seriously. I'm way too old for that shit. Don't tell me and for your own sake, stop making games like that.