Dragon Age: Origins [Assessing interest]

[rangerjohn]

I don't have a problem with the system perse. But it is strange how Falryn wound up being the face of the party.

 

[HolyMan]

Well this was the thread I was working on right before I got the news that is explained here...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/talking-talk/297614-hm-rolled-1-save.html

And I was about to start a combat but since I won't have access to my books even if I borrow a computer it would be to hard to run. So we have to put this on hold while my stuff is de-bugged and then pick it back up with you four versus 8 villagers. (Hint: they got surprise and a couple good hits this might be a tough fight)

See you all in 23-24 days I hope.

HM

 

[HolyMan]

Restart scheduled for after the first of the year. I will be writing a "what has gone before" post till then to add in to get us all up to date. And then we will continue with this adventure.

HM

 

[fireinthedust]

Just lurking here, but following this discussion (at the end at least).

[sblock=my thoughts/comments]But who wants to read those?

Anyway, I like the system, but rolling stats is horrific. I did a few invisiblecastle rolls, like 24 at a time, and the average number was low. Likely 10, maybe, but at least a dozen 8s and 7s. Why any character would leave their home with stats like that, and willingly attack things, makes no sense to me.

Otherwise, I like the system, especially the magic: every spellcaster is one class, but they branch off in seriously different directions depending on build. I like that a lot.

I'd like to do things with this game, design-wise. I could see it used for other settings, even my homebrew one.
[/sblock]

Focusing your questions, HM: what specific things would you point at about the game that make you question whether you like it or not?

Also: what differentiates this system with standard D&D/Pathfinder? At least conceptually.

I have no idea about the source video game, having never played it myself. I'm just looking at the game.


Thanks for the playtest link! I think I'll fill out the questionaire and send it in, actually.

 

[HolyMan]

Hey fitd glad to see our playtest for pbp isn't for naught.

On stats a hero is made by his actions and not his abilities. But yes a player wouldn't probably want ot play a character not at least good in a few areas. But with the system you get to raise a stat (by one) every lvl. So as a character grows so to does his abilities and prowess.

But the game gives me a feel that even if I had a group around the table and playing a couple times a week I wouldn't like it in it's current state.

1) Creatures are not grouped by any power lvl. I believe the game would want you to adjust how many creatures a party faces based on the lvl of the party. Game is to new to know what is dangerous and what isn't. And when you add the randomness of the dice to the mix a party (or your hulking brute you think will be a "tough fight") may end up on the short end of the stick rather quick.

2) The power stunt chart is another TPK danger. You would think that the doubles rule wouldn't play in to much but it sure seems to me alot of doubles are rolled. It seems to me that perhaps a pool of points per encounter might have been a better way to go. Warriors having more points than mages and so forth.

3) Lack of character growth is a big one for me. Warriors have no options but combat abilities, mages only choose things related to magic. What if you had a woodsman who gained magical abilities (aiming for something like a druid), but you have no way to give him a link to his past. No forester, woods lore, hunting, or anything of that nature.

4) And speaking of lacking - a rogue has three options for talents. Contacts, Stealth, or Lockpicking (I think, my book is somewhere right now, not sure). But the point is that each has it's own requirement and you could end up only able to take one of the three, giving you no choice of options.

5) The mage ability to shot a constant magical bolt I still don't like. Should have been limited in some way. A warrior will run out of arrows so a mage should run out of magical power.

Not sure where the second book will take the game, but I will probabaly buy it just to see.

It did come up with some good game mechanics and is interesting from a let's try and see point of view. But as I delve deeper I am still a D&D guy.

Please join in any discussions here And if you have the books keep an eye out for any mistakes on my part plz.

HM

 

[fireinthedust]

Hey fitd glad to see our playtest for pbp isn't for naught.

On stats a hero is made by his actions and not his abilities. But yes a player wouldn't probably want ot play a character not at least good in a few areas. But with the system you get to raise a stat (by one) every lvl. So as a character grows so to does his abilities and prowess.

Forgot about that. That's not so bad, then, if the characters start off with some strong points first that can be improved. Using the points to compensate for severe limitations isn't fun. Check out the point-buy option in the playtest, though.

But the game gives me a feel that even if I had a group around the table and playing a couple times a week I wouldn't like it in it's current state.

1) Creatures are not grouped by any power lvl. I believe the game would want you to adjust how many creatures a party faces based on the lvl of the party. Game is to new to know what is dangerous and what isn't. And when you add the randomness of the dice to the mix a party (or your hulking brute you think will be a "tough fight") may end up on the short end of the stick rather quick.

I think as a GM I need to look at monsters and just check for bonus-to-DC balance, the 55% rule. With random stats, yeah, you'll always have that: you don't have math to work with when it's all a variable.

There is the fun of thinking outside the box with weak characters (ie: get the oil and explode the ogre). I like that for pick-up games.

2) The power stunt chart is another TPK danger. You would think that the doubles rule wouldn't play in to much but it sure seems to me alot of doubles are rolled. It seems to me that perhaps a pool of points per encounter might have been a better way to go. Warriors having more points than mages and so forth.

3) Lack of character growth is a big one for me. Warriors have no options but combat abilities, mages only choose things related to magic. What if you had a woodsman who gained magical abilities (aiming for something like a druid), but you have no way to give him a link to his past. No forester, woods lore, hunting, or anything of that nature.

You don't think the focuses cover that? Talents could be designed to work that in.

And the foundation is able to be built upon, I think. Multi-classing I don't recall, but it looks like it could solve some issues like that. Mostly it's a dearth of options that need to be designed. It's not a complete game; also, it's based on a license, which is limited no matter how great.

4) And speaking of lacking - a rogue has three options for talents. Contacts, Stealth, or Lockpicking (I think, my book is somewhere right now, not sure). But the point is that each has it's own requirement and you could end up only able to take one of the three, giving you no choice of options.

Yeah, I think everyone lacks talents. They should be every level, I think. Mages can't do more than focus on one school of magic, really.

This is the first 5 levels, but I think the next levels should increase this stuff.

Then again: are they trying to simulate game play?

5) The mage ability to shot a constant magical bolt I still don't like. Should have been limited in some way. A warrior will run out of arrows so a mage should run out of magical power.

I like it. I think they need their staves or wands (can't recall). Regardless, mages have a hard life in the game, with low armor and weapons, hp and even athletic ability. As a thinker surrounded by fairly brusk beefy people a lot of the time, I understand the need to be able to zap people with the awesome power of my mind (!)
The damage isn't that great, but it frees them to choose non-combat spells; which means more RP and weird problem-solving moments in-game.
And, if they run out of juice, they don't become a backup crossbow fighter.

Maybe houserule: once they're out of Mana/spell energy, they can't use the arcane bolt.


I read the playtest over. I recall they have a point-buy to cover the stats, which is a huge help. I suggest they do a standard array, arrange to choice as well.

 

[HolyMan]

I guess a bump is in order it has been two weeks.

Another two and I will have to call this game dead.

HM

 

[Walking Dad]

I'm the only one who posted initiative...

[MENTION=2469]rangerjohn[/MENTION], [MENTION=51271]Voda Vosa[/MENTION], where are you?

 

[Voda Vosa]

I'm here, just trying to adapt to Canada, and also with some power output problems!

 

[rangerjohn]

Really having trouble posting to the new boards. This my 3rd attempt at this post. The IC thread dropped so low that I forgot about it.