Dragon Age RPG - How is It?

[Wik]

I've been playing the Dragon Age game on my Xbox for the last couple of weeks, and have really been digging the world presented. And, of course, this got me thinking about how it would transfer to a Pen and Paper RPG....

I mean, the Gray Wardens are a great "how you all met" explanation, Darkspawn are crazy awesome, The Fade is a great place to place adventures, and there are enough races/variety available to players (city elves, Dalish Elves, dwarves, qunari, and a few different human cultures that stand out - Orlesian, Ferelden, Chasind, and so on).

I'm not surprised an RPG was made based on the game. My question is.... how is it? How does it play? What's the basic mechanics like? Class-based or open? Lethality? Would love to hear opinions on the game - is it worth picking up for a mini-campaign?

 

[mach1.9pants]

I haven't played it but it sticks very close to the game (so classes). It is like a slightly souped up and balanced BECMI system IMO.

You can get some stuff here, have a look: Dragon Age RPG: Dark Fantasy Roleplaying

 

[mach1.9pants]

OK a bit more time for a proper answer!

"the Gray Wardens are a great "how you all met" explanation" Not going to happen yet, the rules for Grey Wardens will be in Set 2 (Set 1 only covers levels 1 to 5 of 20)

"there are enough races/variety available" Not so much. 3 classes Warrior, Rogue, Mage. And only the following backgrounds (chosen first: backgrounds cover race/culture/occupation/social class in an unbalanced mix):
Apostate (non Circle Mage): Human or Elf + Mage
Avvarian Hillsman: Human + Rogue or Warrior
Circle Mage: Human or Elf + Mage
City Elf: Elf + Rogue or Warrior
Dalish Elf: Elf + Rogue or Warrior
Fereldan Freeman: Human + Rogue or Warrior
Surface Dwarf: Dwarf + Rogue or Warrior

So that means:
Races:
Dwarf: One background
Elf: Four backgrounds
Human: Five backgrounds.
Classes:
Mage: Two Backgrounds; Rogue or Warrior are five.

Backgrounds determine your languages and bonuses to skills and abilities. Some are automatic and you roll twice on a (race specific) table for 2 more bonuses (bows, language, +1 to CON etc)
IMO this is not enough backgrounds, maybe more will come out in future boxes.

"What's the basic mechanics like":
3d6 + ability (+2 if you have focus: read trained like bows, heavy blades,searching, intimidate, etc) vs DC. So all skills are equal in the eyes of character creation etc.You also get talents which give extra options in certain areas.. wep and shield, armour etc.
Abilites are generated by random 3d6 (you can swp 2 sets) but the roll is compared to a table giving -2 to +4 with 1 being an average - roll 9,10,11.
Note the checks also have a dragon die. One die should be a different colour, this can help determine the amount of success, break ties and also gives you stunt points. It is not mentioned in the books but it should (IMO) also be used for how bad your failures are as well, an even better tool for DMs.
Magic works on mana points and comes back per hour rest (or all back for the traditional 8 hours sleep)

"Lethality":
Not played but to give an idea:
longsword: 2d6 damage + STR
Armour rating goes from 3 - 10 (damage reduction)
health: 20 to 30 (class) + CON + 1d6 (warrior about 35 or so at first level) add 1d6 + CON per level.

" is it worth picking up for a mini-campaign":
I dunno the mechanics are simple but (with the stunt system) allow a fair bit of flex. It is not a rules heavy or options heavy system (e.g. only 18 spells). It depends what you like, to me it seems very BECMI in feel (I would like to see more backgrounds, esp for the Dwarf!) but the rules seem to focus on fast action.

Hope this helps.

 

[Nork]

The part that made me stop reading was the monsters in the DMs guide didn't have any classification with regards to their power level. I mean not a single metric at all (at least old school D&D had xp values).

The GM simply has to either eyeball the stat blocks or spend prep time on test encounters against their copy of the party's character sheets. I've never seen GMing purely by stat block eyeballing work out properly.

If you've got a GM who is willing to invest the hours upon hours of prep time for encounter design, then I suppose it looks like a fairly interesting system.

 

[mach1.9pants]

ouch, I haven't read the GM guide yet. That is pretty poor.

 

[Nork]

I want to be nice to the Dragon Age books, as the books themselves are very nice with a lot of full color art, a lot of background material on the setting, the system seems interesting, and they give guidelines and advice for darn near every other aspect of using the game system.

I suppose I should be fair and point out that other major game systems (like Shadow Run for example) don't provide any balancing guidelines or metrics for encounter design either.

However, I will stick with my previous post. Just because Shadowrun does something wrong, doesn't mean Dragon Age should. Poorly balanced encounters simply ruin games really really fast. Players generally do no like it when they feel like they should just lay down on the ground until the GM comes up with yet another lame excuse as to why the attackers stop and run away despite the fact that they are winning handily.

"Despite having previously described these starving wolves being mad with hunger and attacking you out of desperation, the actual taste of the blood of your party has made them realize they are really not so hungry after all, or maybe they have an eating disorder and fear gaining weight, and so therefore they howl into the air and run off leaving half your party bleeding on the ground... Dude, I had no idea that those many wolves would just dominate you guys like that."

I suppose if you went with a Grim and Gritty campaign style where random deaths and TPKs were common events, then I guess the system could work without a monster power measurement metric. Just pick monsters that fit the story and put them in numbers that fit the story, and if the PCs die without having a chance, then the PCs die without having a chance.

 

[Wik]

Honestly, monster stats by eyeballing is okay by me. But then, I like a lot of games that do that - Shadowrun, d6, and even Savage Worlds all have something similar going for them. So that's not necessarily a losing point for me.

The limited backgrounds, however, might be. But then, I suppose there will be more in further boxed sets... and the idea of more info on the world is intriguing (I'm finding I'm playing the game more for new Codex entries than because I love the combat system or anything, at this point...)

 

[Aus_Snow]

In my not so humble (!) opinion, all TTRPG systems work this way, or they don't work very well at all.

The GM must always eyeball monsters and whatever else. If not, all is lost. Level? CR? Feh. Very funny.

 

[Mouseferatu]

In my not so humble (!) opinion, all TTRPG systems work this way, or they don't work very well at all.

The GM must always eyeball monsters and whatever else. If not, all is lost. Level? CR? Feh. Very funny.

That's a great way to turn off beginners.

The "difficulty system" for a game needn't be rigid, and it needn't be detailed. But it must exist, if you want new DMs/GMs/WhateverMs to feel comfortable putting together encounters. Such systems can range dramatically; heck, they've gone from the almost abstract (XP value) to the rigid (level) in D&D alone.

But I firmly believe that for a game to completely lack such a guideline, even if only in the form of advice/pointers, is a mark against it, even if the game is otherwise fantastic in nearly all respects. These systems aren't necessary a replacement for eyeballing--a good DM who knows his party and players is always a better judge of such things than an abstract system--but the system must still exist as a guideline to narrow options down for the experienced DM, and to guide new DMs until they become experienced.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Note that I'm not speaking specifically of Dragon Age here. I've heard great things about it, my copy's on hold at the FLGS, and I'm looking forward to it. I'm speaking in general terms.