Dragon Age RPG review

[Mouseferatu]

As part of my ongoing column on Suvudu, I've included what is essentially my first RPG review. In this case, I'm looking at Green Ronin's Dragon Age, with a particular slant toward how it works as a game for introducing new players to the hobby.

For Ages "Dragon" and Up - Suvudu - Science Fiction and Fantasy Books, Movies, and Games

(The short version is that, while there are a few flaws that mean I can't give it an unconditional recommendation, I think it's a fantastic game that's well worth the cost, is definitely a viable gateway, and I'm eagerly looking forward to more in the series.)

 

[TerraDave]

Thanks for the review. Definately something I am curious about.

And I love the revival of the full game in the box. In fact I might start another thread on it.

 

[Novem5er]

Mr. Mouse,

I read your review and a few of your other articles just the other day, but I'm just getting around to posting back here.

I really liked your review, and I've enjoyed your varied work for about a year now since coming to EnWorld and playing 4e. I'm not sure about being a game designer, but I am an aspiring novelist, so I was very interested in your related article about the link between RPGs and fantasy writing.

Dragon Age RPG would be a good game for someone to jump into roleplaying. From what I've seen of it, DA has some simple but interesting mechanics. I could definitely see some teenager out there (or anyone else thinking of making that first RPG purchase!) picking up the boxed set because they liked the video game, and then reading the two books front-to-back, and then stealing some d6's from the family Monopoly box.

Now, my wife took a look at the DA RPG and had a major complaint: there was no romance mechanic! Seriously We've both played the DA video game, and a large part of that game is how you can create relationships between yourself and several other characters by choosing various dialogue options, giving particular gifts, and even having those other characters present during certain plot events in the game.

I explained to her that these were things that would be done in the "RP" part of any tabletop game, but she wasn't having any of it. So here's a tip out there for you game designers AND fantasy writers:

Women like creating personal relationships. Create interesting characters, have them fight, fall in love, and sometimes kill each other...and then make some rules for that in an RPG.

My wife wants seduction, drama, and intrigue to be more than just a series of Bluff and Diplomacy checks. "I have to beat a 15? Okay, now what? A 17? Okay... zzzz". She also doesn't want it all to be "in character", which means her husband of a GM just gives in, or the other guys at the table get a little too into it

Why does combat in any system take up dozens or hundreds of pages to detail, but something that many female gamers enjoy (personal relationships) is relegated to a simple skill check or in-character roleplaying than can often be creepy or inappropriate?

I'll related this back to Dragon Age because my wife, and therefore also myself, would have been sold on the system if it had ANY mechanic to match what she loved about the video game... getting people to like you, hate you, and to sleep with you either way

 

[Shayuri]

Well, in simple terms, combat is easy...relationships are hard. Ruleswise, that is.

Combat, whether the second-by-second series of complex equations that is GURPS, or the "roll-and-shout" that is D&D, has an objective that's easy to write rules for. Does my sword hit? What happens if so? You're modeling physical activities that are pretty binary...there are few shades of grey involved. Success or failure is easy to determine, and have immediate and lasting results. The system needs to be "realistic" enough to handle a few basic reality checks (can a halfling pin a dragon by grappling its claw? does a frying pan do more damage than a greatsword?) but beyond that broad requirement it can be quite divorced from reality. None of us are actually mighty barbarians, or voluptuous sorceresses, so none of us can point and shout, "That's not how it would really happen!" More importantly, few of us really CARE how it would REALLY happen. We want it to be fun and memorable and awesome, like in the movies. Not dirty and bloody and awful, like reality. Thus, we have automatic buy-in.

Relationships are harder to write rules for. We don't enter into them, generally, with specific outcomes in mind. There aren't any objective measures of success or failures...and one can turn into the other without warning, or even apparent cause. Moreover, we've all had -some- kind of relationships, no matter how antisocial we may be, and so there's always a notion in our heads of how these things work that a system of rules has to pay attention to. It's easier to accept Throk the Avenger diving off a cliff and slashing off a dragon's head as he plummets past, improbable as it may be in reality, than it is to accept that Throk the Avenger needs but tap a wench on the shoulder to earn her undying adoration. Paraphrased loosely, "No good...we've known too many wenches." Rules for relationships also get into a thorny area of abuse, where players who make extremely socially adept characters can break campaigns more thoroughly than any number of overpowered magic swords. What do you do when you have a PC who gets a critical success in "seducing the Queen." Ulp! Depending on the rules, he may now have access to funds, armies, political power...and even if not, he's controlling the flow of the game far more than anyone else now. And then there's the question of how the social rules apply to player characters? I've seen games DIE over one PC trying to take advantage of another using social rules. It's worse than having someone fight you, because you can wear armor or use spells to block someone's sword...but what can defend you against the subtle manipulator?

Most game systems I've seen get around this spiky hedge bush by throwing up a simple mechanic for use on NPC's, and then say "roleplay it." This is D&D and its associated d20 systems' solution. White Wolf provides more detailed social interaction mechanics, with various social skills either opposing one another, or being opposed by social statistics and/or willpower... If you want a system that tries harder than d20 to model social engagements, White Wolf is a popular alternative that might be worth a look at.

I guess to summarize, I'll say this: Combat's easy to model with rules because in real life, combat is based on rules. The laws of physics. Thus, RPG needs only distill reality down...reducing complexity by making it less realistic. Relationships in real life aren't governed by rules or laws of any kind. There are guidelines...fuzzy things that are effective often enough to be useful, but can't be depended on. As a result, a game designer has to build the rules from scratch...and is always confronted with the knowledge that having rules to describe relationships feels inherently unrealistic...because it IS unrealistic. That's a steep slope for a game designer to climb.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Why does combat in any system take up dozens or hundreds of pages to detail, but something that many female gamers enjoy (personal relationships) is relegated to a simple skill check or in-character roleplaying than can often be creepy or inappropriate?

So, let's see. . .

Only by providing a COMPLEX set of rules for 'personal relationships' can I get lotsa chixx0rz to play with me.

Noted.

 

[Jhaelen]

White Wolf provides more detailed social interaction mechanics, with various social skills either opposing one another, or being opposed by social statistics and/or willpower... If you want a system that tries harder than d20 to model social engagements, White Wolf is a popular alternative that might be worth a look at.

Earthdawn also has nice rules for social interaction. TDE / DSA has lots of skills for _everything_ (but not necessarily a good system).

Actually, I think D&D (and clones) are the odd ones out, here. I mean, classic D&D doesn't have any skills at all! There's a reason D&D has always been associated with hack'n'slay.

Now I don't know the Dragon Age CRPG. Does it actually use social skills or is it 'just' dialog options?

 

[Nagol]

Mr. Mouse,

I read your review and a few of your other articles just the other day, but I'm just getting around to posting back here.

I really liked your review, and I've enjoyed your varied work for about a year now since coming to EnWorld and playing 4e. I'm not sure about being a game designer, but I am an aspiring novelist, so I was very interested in your related article about the link between RPGs and fantasy writing.

Dragon Age RPG would be a good game for someone to jump into roleplaying. From what I've seen of it, DA has some simple but interesting mechanics. I could definitely see some teenager out there (or anyone else thinking of making that first RPG purchase!) picking up the boxed set because they liked the video game, and then reading the two books front-to-back, and then stealing some d6's from the family Monopoly box.

Now, my wife took a look at the DA RPG and had a major complaint: there was no romance mechanic! Seriously We've both played the DA video game, and a large part of that game is how you can create relationships between yourself and several other characters by choosing various dialogue options, giving particular gifts, and even having those other characters present during certain plot events in the game.

I explained to her that these were things that would be done in the "RP" part of any tabletop game, but she wasn't having any of it. So here's a tip out there for you game designers AND fantasy writers:

Women like creating personal relationships. Create interesting characters, have them fight, fall in love, and sometimes kill each other...and then make some rules for than in an RPG.

My wife wants seduction, drama, and intrigue to be more than just a series of Bluff and Diplomacy checks. "I have to beat a 15? Okay, now what? A 17? Okay... zzzz". She also doesn't want it all to be "in character", which means her husband of a GM just gives in, or the other guys at the table get a little too into it

Why does combat in any system take up dozens or hundreds of pages to detail, but something that many female gamers enjoy (personal relationships) is relegated to a simple skill check or in-character roleplaying than can often be creepy or inappropriate?

I'll related this back to Dragon Age because my wife, and therefore also myself, would have been sold on the system if it had ANY mechanic to match what she loved about the video game... getting people to like you, hate you, and to sleep with you either way

Pendragon has a romance sub-system and the romances tie in very well with the passions and personalities systems as well. You may want to give it a look.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Earthdawn also has nice rules for social interaction. TDE / DSA has lots of skills for _everything_ (but not necessarily a good system).

Actually, I think D&D (and clones) are the odd ones out, here. I mean, classic D&D doesn't have any skills at all! There's a reason D&D has always been associated with hack'n'slay.

Now I don't know the Dragon Age CRPG. Does it actually use social skills or is it 'just' dialog options?

Dialog Options and a "tracker" for your relationship with your party member. You also can give gifts to improve the relationship.

I suppose one could model it on something like a long term skill challenge, or maybe multiple ones (each defining one step towards close friendship or love).

In CRPGs, there are typically two scenarios:
1) You have to say what the NPC wants to hear. If you don't want to say what he wants to hear (an entirely roleplaying decision), you can't win. So the challenge in a resolution system is something like an empathy/insight/sense motive check. "What does he/she want?"
2) You have to convicne the NPC of your position. In that case, it's Persuade/Diplomacy
3) A combination. There is a default "safe" answer, but you can also try to convince the NPC otherwise.

I guess that should give good pointers to something like a progress track or skill challenge system. What each roll means is determined by your personality and the NPCs personality.

 

[Gryffyn]

So here's a tip out there for you game designers AND fantasy writers:

Women like creating personal relationships. Create interesting characters, have them fight, fall in love, and sometimes kill each other...and then make some rules for than in an RPG.

That's a bad stereotype, so I am going to politely disagree with you here.

In 30 years of gaming, most of which has been in mixed-gender groups, I have found that you simply cannot generalize in this fashion. I've played with hardcore hack & slash women gamers (quite a few, actually). I've played with guys who were all about building intricate relationships for their PCs (quite a few of those as well). I've seen these same players go into a different game and flip roles, too.

Some gamers like creating personal relationships. Some gamers like killing things and taking their stuff. Some gamers like both, depending on their mood. Stereotyping any one group of people is just inaccurate and counterproductive.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Gryffyn, have some non-refundable XP!

Anyway, yes, if you are keen on such things, regardless of your bits and pieces, you could do worse than to take heed of Nagol's suggestion. Hm. Great game anyway, so even if you aren't. . .